Microsoft struggles with Vista's perceptions
In the 15 months since Windows Vista had its mainstream launch, Microsoft says it's made progress on a number of key metrics: things like application compatibility, availability of drivers, performance, reliability, and battery life.
But there is one area where the company has struggled to gain ground: how Vista is perceived.
"There's certainly a perceptual gap there," Mike Nash, a Microsoft corporate vice president, said in an interview Thursday. He pointed to Microsoft research that shows that 86 percent of those actually using Vista would recommend it to a friend.
"The perception of Vista is a lot better for the people that have used Windows Vista than (for) the ones who haven't," Nash said. "At some level, a little seeing is believing."
Microsoft has been trying different ways to promote Windows Vista, including a special pink edition in Japan that combines Vista Home Premium with Windows Live OneCare.
(Credit: Amazon.com)In terms of absolute sales, Vista has done well. More than 140 million computers have been sold with the operating system. But looking at that figure alone ignores the continued lackluster response that Vista gets from media and analysts, as well as the continued demand from businesses for the operating system's predecessor, Windows XP.
Microsoft is going on the PR offensive this week, with Nash trying to make the case to the press that Vista is getting a bad rap.
Top executives have conceded that compatibility was not where it needed to be at Vista's launch. But Nash says things have really changed in the ensuing months.
The company tries to track what the odds are that an XP user will find that all the hardware and software they use today will work with Vista.
Currently, it's above 90 percent, Nash said, excluding truly old devices like TWAIN scanners and devices that connect to outdated ports. He notes that 99 of the 100 top-selling applications work with Vista.
That number, though, can be deceiving. Although the latest versions of most programs work with Vista, many consumers and small businesses use older versions of programs. That adds to the cost of switching to Vista.
Nash resists the notion that the answer is providing another extension for computer makers to keep selling Windows XP. Microsoft already extended the deadline for large computer makers once, allowing sales through June 30, as opposed to ending them this past January. The software maker also granted a more narrow extension, allowing XP to be used on ultralow-cost computers through 2010.
Microsoft says XP plan "is the right plan"
Nash maintains that the users who really still need XP--businesses--have ways to get the operating system, while it's time for the rest of the ecosystem to move forward.
While some would argue that the fact that computer makers are "pre-downgrading" Vista machines to Windows XP should prompt Microsoft to grant another extension, Nash said the downgrade option is sufficient to address what Microsoft sees in the marketplace.
"We feel that our plan is the right plan," Nash said. Enterprises with volume license contracts can continue putting XP on machines, while small businesses can buy Vista Business or Ultimate, and have either their computer maker or service provider downgrade them to XP, until they are ready to move to Vista.
"I don't think it's a convoluted process," Nash said. "We want to make sure that customers can get what they need."
As for business adoption, Nash said things with Vista are fairly similar to what has been seen with past releases, as large enterprises take time to make sure that their applications are compatible.
"I don't think this is a different phenomenon than what we have seen in the past," Nash said, adding that it is the case that enterprises are more complex than they were when XP debuted in 2001.
Tom Norton, who works in Hewlett-Packard's consulting unit, said it remains the early days for businesses, when it comes to Vista.
Companies moving to Vista are typically doing so as part of a coordinated plan to reduce the annual cost of supporting their desktop PCs. Vista alone is often not enough to drive the cost savings, but businesses are finding that by combining Vista with better management tools, they can shave $80 or even $120 off the $300 or so they spend per year to support each PC.
At the same time, Norton said some challenges are limiting adoption, including the view that upgrading to Vista is more work, as well as the actual hardware costs that many businesses face in trying to move to the more demanding operating system.
With, XP, Norton said companies felt that they had less upfront work to do to make the transition and less anxiety about whether line-of-business applications would work smoothly.
"In some cases, we are finding that it is just an anxiety, as opposed to a reality," he said.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
Please Microsoft it is sad you have to stoop this low. Just give users what they want and stop all of this crap, it just makes you look even worse.
tim
Or Win 95 to Win 98
Or Win 3.11 to Win 95
That is already being done. OEM's have been offering you the choice. Today, vista sales are outpacing sales of any other operating system, including XP.
Keep in mind, this only applies to new computer sales. Those who have computers bought prior to the vista release are still using XP by a wide margin.
It's like replacing a appliance that works well and is well build with a cheap plastic product that takes 2x as long to work and calling it new and improved.
my $0.02
Why? Why is it that Mac fanbois are willing to put up with the complete and total crap that comes with EVERY new version of OS X....because they are fanbois. People who use Windows are married to the damn OS. They will complain, and they will look at alternatives. Apple users? Hell no.
But no lets get back to XP pre SP1, let alone SP2. It sucked hard. Harder then Vista? Not so much. But as people love to skip over XP is Windows 5.1 (Clue: Windows 2000 was Windows 5.0.) Vista is a brand new beast. It is Windows 6.0 and you can damn well tell from the bugs that it shipped with. SP1 has come along way. SP2 will take it even further.
Meanwhile anyone who is running Vista on a system that isn?t some POS sub-$1000 and RAM at or above 1GB and a GPU that has at least 128MB of VRAM you will be fine.
No what Vista?s problem is the propaganda being put out by the moron fanbois who probably 60% of then have never even touched Vista; let alone know enough to make an intelligent comment on if it sucks or not. But such a thing would require intelligence in the first place.
all the prior systems, me thinks not. It also suffers from the
same fragment oriented installation/deinstallation whoas of the
past systems (linux and Mac have none of these issues).
Also, I will never use an OS that has DRM embedded in the OS
itself. Sure Macs have DRM but it is only implemented at the
application level and not part of the core OS. Anyone using such
an OS is just plain asking for it. Guess you can say that is new
for Vista. XP fortunately is not crippled by such crap.
Rather like the latest version of OS X.
Vista's problem is the artifical complexity created by DRM and other things that were optional on the part of MS. The service packs are bug fixes. Vista should have released with a level of completion that Service Pack 1 had.
Heck with XP I didn't need SP1 to do make XP work.
We are not comparing original version XP and original version Vista, we are comparing final version XP with original version Vista.
But you already knew that, didn't you?
Just read this and see if you have the nerve to blame the Vista debacle, one of the greatest failures in the history of technology, on non-Windows users.
http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9929405-56.html
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9927721-7.html
http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/archives/2008/04/save_windows_xp.html
-RFH
that number of developers supporting the Windows franchise
has dropped for the first time (10% decline), I think the writing
is on the wall.
Sure, MS has the inertia to keep the lead for awhile, but unless
they perform on Windows7 I think they are on the slow decline
to oblivion, when you consider even their own software (office)
runs faster on XP than Vista.
> XP when it came out. Everyone was screaming it sucked.
The Vista debacle can barely be compared with OS upgrades of the past.
Every single time Microsoft came up with a new OS (from DOS to Win 3.1, all the way to Windows ME to XP) users have been upset and they wished the clock to be pushed *forward*. "Please fix this! Please fix that!"
This is the first time in the history of operating systems that users want the clock to be moved *backwards*.
A substantial percentage of users are saying: "I don't care whether Vista is broken, or if the fix it or not - I do not need it, I do not want it. I am fine with XP".
Only a blind person -by nature or by choice- will fail to see the phenomenon.
-Ramon
"Xtreme Pain" took a while to be seen as a good OS. Check out the early user opinions of XP (pre-SP1/2) on CNET. They're pretty scathing.
I like Vista it's more powerful, with things like the new security which has saved me on a couple of occasions now and that's my choice too, but save me from having to hear this stuff.
Your computer isn't going to stop working anytime soon because of your choice just as mine hasn't either. People who don't want Vista should just not buy it and stop making waves for people who do and like it..
It's just an opinion by nature or by choice..
-Don
This could be a logical stop point for Microsoft to start work on an all new OS, finally get that WinFS setup they want so badly, and still offer businesses and customers that older product until they can ramp up to a new architecture.
I have no way of knowing any of this, but it seems like it could be a good break point in the legacy and start fresh with a minimum impact on existing customers.
Microsoft has a slightly bigger problem here.
First, if you cut off backwards compatibility, you end up cutting off the #1 prime reason that anyone would still want to bother with Windows for their next purchase. The most common phrase heard among folks who keep buying Windows year after year, version after version...?
"well, Windows runs all of my stuff".
Cut that off, and I can confidently predict that the defections away from Microsoft will become massive in business, and almost as big among home users.
Of course, MSFT could offer what Apple did - a "Classic" virtualized mode that fired up the old stuff until the new stuff arrives. Problem with that is, Apple was able to virtualize a puny MacOS9 under OSX without a massive hit in system performance. Wanna take odds on the performance hit that a Vista VM instance would demand?
/P
They now support also 64-bit Windows. I cringe when I hear a "user" downgraded his 64bit computer to XP.. I am like why waste the CPU or memory addressing..
I'd love to see Microsoft come out with something new and still keep Windows around and see what happens myself.
YOU HAVE TO BE CRAZY, I have just about given up, give me XP Pro any time.
LES PROBLEM!
case 1065329843 and 1065315969 if you read this and give a dam.
Are we ready to say that this type of writing is the fault of a few "Mac fanboys":
http://blog.wired.com/business/2008/04/betting-on-ball.html
-RFH
open-source BSD unix vs. going from XP (well-honed OS) to a
DRM embedded OS with a crippling UAC.
OS X/Linux can run on smaller systems with older processors.
Vista you need high performing machine for having a hope to
run all its bells and whistles, maybe that is why they have so
many versions of it for sale. Maybe we should call it Vista-lite,
since MS couldn't deliver on their promises (WinFS, etc.) taking
twice as long as Apple did moving from OS 9.
Darwin is no longer open-source:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060517-6852.html
Anyway, considering the proprietary extensions to turn Darwin into OS-X it was never truly open anyway. You're really fooling youself if you think there's anything open about Apple's business model. This is neither good nor bad -- but it definitely doesn't go against MS.
wegg: "going from XP (well-honed OS) to a DRM embedded OS with a crippling UAC"
UAC is an excellent addition to force developers to implement least-privileged design issues. And after your initial setup is complete you rarely get a UAC prompt. Don't beleive the misinformation about UAC on the net -- or in your case, stop spreading misinformation and try it out for yourself.
wegg: "OS X/Linux can run on smaller systems with older processors."
If you have an older machine you've probably got XP/Linux/OS-X on it anyway. Who's forcing you to install Vista on it?
wegg: "Vista you need high performing machine for having a hope to run all its bells and whistles"
Not really, no. I have several low spec machines that run Vista just fine.
wegg: "MS couldn't deliver on their promises (WinFS, etc.)"
WinFS has been scrapped. They tried, and they failed, and they admitted that this idea wouldn't work out. What's wrong with that? All R&D doesn't always result in a released product -- sometimes you just find out that stuff won't work or its ahead of its time or it isn't suited to the requirements you have etc.
For the record Windows 3.x is not an OS. The OS was some form of DOS (MS-DOS, PC-DOS, Novell DOS) and Windows 3.x ran on top of the OS.
There really wasn't a lot of griping when Windows 95 came out because people still had tons of choices. You could run your DOS based applications in DOS, OS/2, and Windows 95. You could run your Windows 3.x applications in Windows 3.x, Windows 95, or OS/2. There were lots of choices.
People really didn't start griping until they were locked into a piece of software because it was written for Win32 and wouldn't run on 3.x or OS/2. You only had two choices at that point to run Win32 apps, Windows 95 or Windows NT (3.1, 3.51).
Very few grips were heard from those going from Windows NT 3.x to Windows NT 4 because everyone wanted the new shiny Windows 95 interface for their workstations at work.
People really didn't start gripping until Windows 2000, and yes Windows ME is Windows 2000. But just like XP Home and Pro; Vista Basic and the other Vista Flavors it was crippled with just enough features turned off to force you to pay the extra money for the things you wanted vs what you needed.
Windows 95 would run on a 386. It ran slow but it would run. It would scream on a 486 and better. Vista on the other had you have to just go out and buy all new gear (which sucks) because most people's current setup that they purchased in 2001 works just fine.
My advice for Windows users, don't go out and buy a new system just to keep up with the guy next door. Go out and buy it if you need it. Ask your self what does your current system not do that you need it to do? If it does everything you need it to do there is no reason to move to Vista.
If your system doesn't do what you want it to do, look first at the applications that will do what you need them to do then go out and purchase a system that will support the applications.
If the apps you need only run on a Mac then buy a Mac. If the apps you need only run on Windows then buy a Windows based computer.
To many people just blindly purchase what someone else tells them without really researching what they need to do. It may be that you don't even need a computer at all.
All polls and surveys use statistical methods to reach their conclusions. The methods are well established. Don't try to discount the results of a survey just because it doesn't match your preconceptions.
Windows ME is Windows 2000? You can't be serious.
Also, the hardware requirements to run Vista well aren't that onerous. They're more than for XP, and roughly equivalent to those for OSX. OSX requires more CPU because of the Mach kernel.
You made a couple of good points, though. The structure of the feature sets in the various flavors of Vista is unnecessarily slanted against the home editions. If I'm forced to pay extra for the features I want, such as fax&scan, encryption, and full system backup, I'm damn sure it's going to be from third-party vendors and not by paying for Ultimate. I also agree with your final advice for Windows users.
You just don't get Vista or why there are multiple versions for different markets and different hardware footprints do you..
Your comments just don't really fit with what I see as reality. But hey I have modern hardware and yes I update every 3 years at least..
The versions of Vista work like this..
If you are a home user and don't have aero capable graphics cards, buy Vista Basic (They are all upgradeable later)
If you have a Media Center PC with a tv Tuner in it BUY home premium or ultimate..
If you have XP Pro, and connect to a microsoft network server at work, buy Vista Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate..
If you are a geek with everything buy ultimate, if you don't need to connect to a work PC network, buy Home premium..
Simple, it's not disabled. Why pay for things you can't use though..
I remember hearing a rumor long before the Vista release that the hardware manufacturers wanted MS to put out something that would force users to buy new equipment. I thought it was crazy at the time, but then it seems to fit what we got in the end.
Surely MS could have come out with a fast and lighter version of an OS. With that many programmers and cash, why not? Well that would certainly upset the HP's and Dell's of the world who make their money selling big honking machines to folks. If you could have slapped Vista on a five year-old machine and have it run better than XP, no one would have bought new HW, or at least it would have slowed the buying down.
At this point, MS can wait a bit, and then put out the better product, such as when the ditched the crap Me, and issue XP. (by the way, as I recall, 95, 2000, and XP were all pretty much liked at the time they came out. 98, Me, and Vista seem to be the problems (lock-ups, don't need it, too slow and don't need it).
No, I'm not a Mac fan at all.
I have done everything in my power to streamline and tighten up Vista and it still runs like a cow doing ballet. It's a piece of bloated, barely functional crap.
If MS had any dignity or self respect, much less even the smallest modicum of respect for its own customers, they would put this thing to bed, admit their huge failure, and continue to support XP while working on a new OS that's actually worth running.
They'll never do such a thing, of course, but that's what they SHOULD do. Why anyone would say that Vista is a good OS is really beyond me, but as far as I'm concerned, based on personal experience and the experience of others I personally know who have tried to use Vista, all I can say is that anyone who claims to actually use it with any success is either an extremely casual user with little experience or just plain lying.
I have used both XP and Vista, and Vista is the better operating system of the two. Secondly, I am not a casual user, I am on a Vista machine 12 hours out of the day, and get MORE stuff done than on my old Windows XP machine. Thirdly, don't call someone a 'liar' unless you want to be taken to task for making assumptions.
http://www.support4vista.com/vista-faq.htm
Oh, yeah...I'm going to trust him when he tells us how great Microsoft is. He's obviously a stooge because if he was in any other position in any other company he'd be just as po'd as the rest of us suckers too.
(rolleyes)
I remember all of that..
- Perception ??
- by Carion May 1, 2008 3:27 PM PDT
- The reality is that most windows users want to stick with XP until MS has something better.. Fat chance of that happening any time soon..
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (211 Comments)In the meantime many will opt for Apple or Linux which are the best options for the future. MS is a dinosaur and will become extinct in the near future...