Does Vista's stunted growth hint at the death of the desktop?

Is the desktop metaphor dead, replaced by Web services like Google and Facebook? Or is Vista so bad that it's not worth buying?

New data points to the latter suggestion, leaving Microsoft with two options. It can either view its sagging Vista sales as a testament to the incredible work of art that is Windows XP (gag). Or it can concede that Vista is a pile of potty.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, this isn't a Windows thing at all but simply a recognition that we may have tapped out the "must-have" innovations on the fat-client desktop leading people to wait out upgrades until a hardware refresh makes the choice a no-brainer.

Regardless of how Microsoft chooses to view its Vista numbers, it clearly has a problem. Though it's only one dataset, PCWorld's users aren't jumping up and down for Vista. PCWorld measured Web traffic on its site, and found that adoption of Vista is tepid (14 percent), and is crawling compared with how fast XP came out of the gate:

How much of an accomplishment is it for a new version of Windows to get to 14 percent usage in 11 months? The logical benchmark is to compare it to the first 11 months of Windows XP, back in 2001 and 2002.

In that period, that operating system went from nothing to 36 percent usage on PCWorld.com--more than 250 percent of the usage that Vista has mustered so far. In fact, it only took 11 months for XP...to surpass Windows 98...and become the most-used version of Windows among users of the site.

It's possible that the numbers aren't as bad as they are made to appear or, rather, that there's a good reason for how bad they are. Some Slashdot commentary points out that Vista has a tougher battle ahead of it because it's meant to replace a strong product (XP) when XP replaced a terrible product (ME).

Fine. But that doesn't change the fact that 42.3 percent of Windows OS sales are XP today. Microsoft depends on new license sales to fuel its growth. With a subscription model, it arguably would be OK. But with a huge swath of its user base not injecting new cash into the Microsoft ecosystem? Well, let's just say it's time to push Sharepoint a little harder as a way to suck people into upgrading.

It's not just Vista that is wheezing, however. PCWorld's numbers show Firefox jumping from 25 percent of its site visitors to 36 percent by the year end. As comparison, 70 percent of the visitors to this blog use Windows (of various flavors)...but 54 percent use Firefox. Only 31 percent choose Internet Explorer.

Microsoft seems to have lost the "Wow" in its products, and it already covered "cheap and easy" in its last release. There doesn't appear to be much reason to move to Microsoft right now, while the Mac's ease of use and integration with the iPod is paving the way for more Mac usage (and Ubuntu is carving out fans within the Linux crowd).

Crisis time for Microsoft? Probably not. But certainly time to worry.

The real question is, "Worry about what?" Worry about Vista's problems or worry about the problems with the desktop metaphor. Is it dead? Or does Vista just stink? Thoughts?

[prodezigner]

Vista doesn't stink. I just recently upgraded my computer, and it runs Vista Home Premium no problem. It ran XP fine as well, in fact it ran XP better.

I know majority of users are awaiting the arrival of SP1 to arrive next year before upgrading. DirectX 10 is going to be revolutionary for gamers, and it's only a matter of time before Vista's needy resource demands aren't as needy. I remember when 1GB was the standard for decent computer games. Now some recommend using 1.5GB to 2.0GB or more for system requirements.

Vista is extremely stable, legacy support stinks, but over time, I think it'll get better.

[tarrantm]

Yeah, DirectX10 is so revolutionary that it's already been ported to XP by Alky because Nvidia couldn't push out the promises MS made about the added functionality on the graphics side. Thus killing any need to actually upgrade to Vista.

[Tinman52]

When's it going to get better? There are 3 thigns I can't stand about Vista.

1. It's a memory hog. Games and apps run fine on Vista with 4GB of RAM. That's not necessarily the case with only 2GB of RAM.
2. What's with the HD access? Vista seems to be thrashing the HD pretty consistently. I've never noticed that issue with XP.
3. Did MS even consider IT users when designing Vista? I'd start listing headaches that's Vista's caused, but there are a billion blogs about it.

In any event, I've started recommending XP again. Vista is starting to remind me of a bloated ME OS albit, a slightly more stable one when you have some beefy system specs to power Vista.

[davidwb45011]

It doesn't stink - your computer ran XP better. So which is it? Any computer that ran XP well should be able to run Vista (maybe needing a RAM upgrade).

My experience? A brand new computer with a lovely Vista sticker on it ran like a dog even after a RAM upgrade. A printer released just weeks before Vista was released (and more than a year after Vista betas were first released) could only perform basic tasks. It couldn't scan, and couldn't fax most of the time. The quirks of the OS were beyond comprehension. But I fixed it by upgrading to XP. I can understand an older computer not running a new OS well but when a computer comes pre-installed with the new OS it better run well!

Vista is just another of Microsoft's long line of broken promises. Today that new computer I bought is running Ubunta 7 and I've been playing around with the idea of installing OS X on it. I've assembled all the various files and patches, all I need to do is reserve some time for the project.

[craigdominix]

as a studying pc technician i refer all my clients to the new user friendly windows vista.it's a great program in my opinion, much better than xp. i think microsoft finally got it right this time.

[Benf]

The day after Vista was released I put it on 26 various brand PC's (All Desktops) Replaceing XP, all 26 have run nearly perfectly since then and require almost no maintanence, they are almost crash proof, about as fast as XP, infinantly more secure and with one exception everything worked just fine, In my opinion, all this anti Vista hype is fueled by yellow journalism and those web and technology sites that just plain dont like Microsoft. Remember how everyone was whining about wanting more security in XP? well Microsoft gave it to them in Vista and now there whining about too much security, You cant please em' all.

[davidwb45011]

You obviously ought to spend more time studying. You've failed the exam!

[Darrkon]

I held on to windows 2000 for a long time before I went to XP because for me, it wasn't that big of a deal (and it still isn't). However after having a quick muck about with vista and the new desktop.. I had to have it at home.. So I went and actually bought the OS and threw it on my machine at home (which is a couple of years old, but with a new video card and more RAM runs vista no problems at all).

There is a lot more that needs to be turned off in order to make it usable for power users.. but once you get past that crap and it starts working how you want.. its a very good OS, and I like it plenty.

It can be finicky (occaisionally failed to boot and just hung with a black screen.. turned out to be my sound card of all things), but lately haven't had any problems with it, and am still happy to have moved from XP to Vista.

I think there is a lot of bad 'word of mouth' which is putting people off, but I say get out there and give it a bash!!!

Happy new year!

[alawaiblowfish]

Vista stinks! It's a memory hog and does little to improve the usability of the platform. In fact, it has gotten more confusing since XP, thanks to having to choose a version, renaming system options, "improving" the file structure, and that wretched security pop up that asks you if you just clicked to open anything and everything! The extra effort and energy is not worth it, especially at $300 a pop.

[the_beatfreak_atx]

"Vista stinks! It's a memory hog and does little to improve the usability of the platform. In fact, it has gotten more confusing since XP, thanks to having to choose a version, renaming system options, "improving" the file structure," Blah, blah, blah All things people said about XP when it was released. What makes people think they should just be able to upgrade their operating system without upgrading their hardware too?? Guess what more features are going to require more hardware to run it. And "that wretched security pop up" though admitedly annoying protects people like you from mucking up their computer with crap that installs without you noticing. One point I have to agree on is that its not worth the $300.

Now my professional opinion...I reccommend to all my clients if you are buying a new PC, from scratch, new peripherals, the whole nine...go ahead and get Vista. Otherwise if your just looking to upgrade, hold your horses. Let ms work out all the kinks and allow legacy support to catch up. Wait at least til the first service pack. Then if youre ready upgrade your pc, not just to the minimum system requirements.

[pkidza]

I use Ubuntu at home. I had been using Windows XP before that pretty much since its release. I just got tired of it and needed a change. I ran the Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor and it recommended Windows Vista Home Basic because apparently my PC sucks.

I got hold of a copy of Ubuntu and installed it. It is very fast and reliable. I get all the 3D effects smoothly with my hardware that wouldn't be able to run Vista properly. I like the quick upgrade schedule and the fact that security problems seem to be patched quickly. Vista also costs half an average South African's monthly salary and so I couldn't really afford it. So I am not really against Vista but it would have been impossible for me to financially upgrade to it. Now that I am happy with Ubuntu I don't think that I will be able to go back to Windows even when I upgrade my computer.

I think that there is still some life left in the desktop metaphor. It looks like Gnome is getting some cool integration with web sites and so I think that in the medium term the desktop will pair up with the web and they will work together. The web still needs features like offline support before it can replace the way I use my desktop.

[ethana2]

Ubuntu is awesome. On top of that awesomeness, WINE may hit 1.0 this year, and Dell is rolling out Ubuntu across their entire line of computers, giving people actual /choice/. This is the year of the Ubuntu desktop. Because Linux by any other name, is just as sweet, if not more so.

[cardfan1212]

Vista is fine. It's just idiots like the writer of the blog above who keep trying to make something out of nothing.

[pdskep]

Right on! Vista works exceptionally well for me. It's idiots like this who put the 'Vista sucks' in the public mind so they won't buy it.

[j0hnnyb0y]

I say use what ever operating system you like. But if you think Vista is so great let ask you a question. Have you ever tried any Linux? If you are computer savvy enough to set up the language, keyboard, and simple broadband internet connection I will send you free of charge a CD or a DVD if you have a DVD recordable drive. There is a a little program called Puppy. Let me tell you Puppy aint no dog. It loads completely into your temporary memory. You can take the CD / DVD out once it is booted up. It does not touch your hard drive unless you chose to install it there. Because it is already in your temporary Memory it is really fast. Don't hate something just because you don't understand it. Linux is doing some really exciting and innovative things. Give it a free test drive. I hope this is OK for the rules here. My email is [e-mail] if you are interested in a free copy of Puppy and tell me if you have a rewritable DVD or not. You also need to be able to boot from you CD / DVD and have at least 128 Megs of RAM.
Happy computing. Happy computing!

[will110256]

I haven't looked at Vista seriously, but it looks like it might have a lot of bells and whistles. Maybe it's even pretty well designed. But with the experiences that I have had (and I would suspect many others) with the problems that were in Windows 98 and Windows XP and the constant for updates, I would not buy a new Windows operation system until it had been on the market a few years. Two and a half years ago I bought a nice Dell laptop and I got the 4 year anything goes wrong they fix it warranty. When that expires in a year and a half I will probably buy a new computer and it will probably have Vista. But the more I have problems with Windows, in whateve flavor, the more I think about Macs and Linux.

[markfugate]

Why pay for Vista when all you need to do is remove half of your memory, clock down your CPU by two thirds, disable your CDROM, change the desktop background, enable the most useless XP junk, and voila, you have a perfectly functioning Vista!

[pepperboi222]

a perfectly functioning noob!

[zerdos]

Yes, Vista stinks, but that's not the real point here. You're right, the bigger issue is that as we move to the Web, what OS - and what remaining apps - we have is less and less important. We don't need a new OS just to get on the Web. In fact we won't need newer and faster PCs either...

[Chris8472]

Vista is just fine as long as you don't want to actually use your computer. However like a corvette with a destroyed engine, it looks great in the drive-way but is absolutely useless if you want to get anything done with it. Needless to say, I upgraded back to XP Pro. Microsoft doesn't make it easy to upgrade from Vista to XP, and I eventually gave up and paid some to do it; however it was the best $100 I've ever spent.

[cummjejp2]

Funny thing is, all of my friends that have upgraded haven't really had anything bad to say about Vista. The only people complaining or making fun of it are the media (like Cnet) who almost always seem to be anti-Microsoft and Mac Users. The thing that has kept me from upgrading is the fact that it's simply cheaper to get Vista with a new computer. My computer works fine for now and since Microsoft hasn't ceased support for XP I'm in no rush to change. And, if I recall correctly, a lot of people bashed XP until Service pack 2 came out. Hopefully the same thing happens to Vista. Just gotta give it time. (FWIW, I hate the interface of Mac operating systems. Give me menus any day.)

[Astinsan]

I think they should of made the names shorter and more to the point. I also think they shouldn't of released a 32 bit and 64 bit version. They should have one version that runs on any 64bit system with some sort of middle ware that can communicate the old api's and kernel hooks for old software. They worked for win311 to 95 you could run 16 bit stuff on windows 95 with little problem.

I also think that maybe everyone is being a little harsh on ms. They were starting from scratch basically. Longhorn was scrapped 1/2 through the alpha stage. I don't even use MS Windows and I find it hard to crucify them over a some what polished high beta (at best)

Give them a break... I am sure they know they screwed up.

[cowboysneezy]

I'm primarily a Mac user who received a low-end Gateway laptop with Vista (the fake, Home Basic version) as a gift. Once I beefed up the RAM from 512 megs (unusable and should be illegal to sell that way) to 2 gigs, it worked fine, after about 20 hours worth of tinkering to get unnecessary settings and OEM garbage off of it. I've had various flavors of Windows systems over the years (3.11, 95, 98, XP). Fake Vista is the first one that can go more than a day without crashing. In fact, it can go several days. It is very buggy though. Items saved to the desktop can become permanently undeletable. The recycle bin (now more of a knock-off trash can) disappears when it is supposed to change its status from empty to having waste in it and vice versa. I think these are minor things that can be fixed over time. I think that the OEMs share the responsibility of the OS sucking out-of-the-box. Upon the first boot-up there should be an option "Decrapify or No?" I can't wait to get back stateside though and upgrade my two-year old Mac mini to Leopard, which will go off without a hitch as all Mac upgrades do for me (obigatory admitted Apple-fanboy plug). I also can't wait to try out the Leopard-skinned Mac Firefox.

[dt.baker]

Vista is ok and hopefully SP1 will make it better. I think alot of people, not the die hard fans who want the cutting edge, see no reason to upgrade as XP does everything they need i.e read a few emails and surf the net. These people will probably only get Vista when they buy a new PC. I used to have a mac and I think Apple are good at tapping into their fan base which is made up of mostly tech savvy people anyway i.e those more likely to upgrade.

[ranjo65]

Just last night I had a conversation with my roommate (who, like me, runs Vista Home Premium) about all of the Vista Bashing readily available on sites like Cnet, PCWorld, ZDnet, et al., and that I just don't get it. Perhaps the dislike comes from devs who can't make Vista do what they want it to do, or maybe it's because a lot of people love to hate Microsoft. I don't really know.

What I do know, though, is that I love Vista. Sure, I had to remove all of the Crapware that came preinstalled on my notebook, and, yes, I spent hours finding the best tweaks to help me get the most out of both my notebook and Vista. But for me that's at least half the fun of owning a computer. You buy, you set it up, make it your own and then sit back and smile. I'm willing to bet that there isn't an XP or, God help us, an Ubuntu fanatic alive that doesn't handle their machine in that very fashion.

I realize that there are a large number of people who want everything to work perfectly out of the box which, to me, seems unrealistic. But that's just me thinking out loud.

[matwiow2008]

I'm not a mac fanboi, at least I don't think, but I switched last year from Windows XP to Mac Tiger, and everything worked perfectly out of the box. I don't see how wasting hour after hour trying to get something to work that should just work is in any way fun.

[Fiji721]

Windows Vista is actually a mighty fine operating system. I'm running Windows Vista Home Premuim and it rocks. I have been running programs that require lot's RAM & CPU power and still have'nt noticed any slow down. I'm not running the most powerful system with a AMD Athlon 64 3800 but I could run Vista well. Everybody, well almost everyody critizes User Account Control but don't know how effective it is. Have any of you tried, Windows DVD Maker, the 2nd best feature in the OS, even long time windows vista basher, Lance Ulanoff thinks so. Windows Media Center is an amazing feature of the Vista operating system, Microsoft did a amazing job on it and should be proud contrary to what the rest of the Windows Vista bashers say. Instant Search is amazing as 1000 other vista features. I'm not saying that Mac OS X, Linux and Ubuntu suck, there all amazing operating systems so all of the companies should be proud. Also while everybody having problem's Games 4 Windows Live, I'm not, I am not saying that they all are lying, some must have problems but some people who truly hate Microsoft are telling fibs. People, try Vista, play with it, enjoy it and then review it without any lies.

One side comment: Don't read Peter Guttman's article about DRM in Vista, Ed Bott already debunked this.

[aklingman86]

I just wanted to through my 2 cents in here. I am currently running w/ Vista Premium on a low end Dell that came packaged with it. I dont have any issues with the OS other than some sluggishness. However, this is not the reason for my comment. I believe that the upgrade to Vista hasn't proven to give enough difference from XP to be a viable upgrade. Also it left many users in the dark when they had to upgrade hardware to run the OS but all other programs (Firefox, Limewire, Bitcomet, etc....) ran just fine if not better on XP... basically Vista is just a good looking system and its pretty stable, but some compatibility issues hamper the experience.

[MichaelAllen]

I?m a big Microsoft fan; however, they really messed up when they forced the manufactures like Dell and HP to cram Vista down consumer?s
throats. Personally, I?ve found that Vista works quite well if you have great hardware (Quad-Core, 2GB+ RAM, 256mb VideoCard, etc.). My problem is most of my clients look for $500-$1000 desktops and $750-$1,500 notebooks which can run XP wonderfully but can barely run Vista.

Here?s an idea for Microsoft: Instead of forcing manufacturers to install Vista on subpar hardware, require realistic hardware minimums (2GHz Core2Duo, 2GB RAM, 128MB Video Card) and force manufacturers to sell XP on anything less.

[Renegade Knight]

I like the Vista Interface more than XP and I like BitLocker a heck of a lot. Unlike XP however Vista really isn't better out of the gate. XP to Win 98 improved every angle of coputing. Yes I had some problems with XP but I didn't have more than 98, and I did have a more useful Windows. That's not true of Vista. I have a more useful OS but more problems and issues trying to get it to do what XP did well. Support? With XP, 98, 95, 3.x, and even 1.x I didn't need to call MS Support. With Vista I did. Their support gave up on solving the problem.

When I had to chose a computer that my wife could rely on to go back to school. It was XP hands down. I didn't think fighting with Vista was worth it. XP is far closer to "It just works" and it has been that since day 1. Vista is another thing.

[aweysham]

Vista is trash, plain and simple. How MS could release that product with all the bugs is beyond me!! For every problem I have with Vista Ultimate I search the net and find many many people with the same problem and no solution. Im running a ASUS G1S with Vista Ultimate. Im buying a new notebook very soon and will remove Vista (seems there is not much choice now) and installing XP Pro. Its the best OS I have ever used since I started with DOS 4.0