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

Is the desktop metaphor dead? Or is Vista just really bad?

[Renegade Knight]

Dead Desktops.

Desktops still have a role, but laptops are more mobile. As they do what desktops can do now, and they let you work in the kitchen, or living room their mobility means they will sell. Desktops have a place but it's going to be more fixed. The Business server, the media center and that kind of thing.

Laptops are usually second comptuers. Desktops don't need to be replaced as often for their new roles. They are dead, just the use is different.

[sting7k]

Vista is slow because PCs are lasting longer. People who have gotten new PCs in the past 3-4 years are finding that if they are only using XP and doing basic internet usage and office use there isn't much need to go out and buy a new one.

I have a 4.5 year old dell inspiron 8500, had zero problems with it and it still runs just fine with XP pro. I did just get a new dell vostro and got it with vista. I love vista, I don't see what is wrong with it. Aero is cool, it has yet to crash on me, windows media player actually works (the WMP in XP I could never get to run more than 10 mins), and the sidebar is useful.

My only complaint about vista was that stupid user account control, I don't know why an administrator account needs that but I turned it off after 5 minutes and now it isn't a problem. Many of my friends have gotten vista PCs and they all like it too.

Yea somethings are different but after awhile you learn the new structure of filing and such and find out that it works smoother and better than XP. My old inspiron now is collecting dust because I would rather work with my vista PC.

XP exploded in sales because it was a big leap over the previous versions and once people found out they were eager to ditch their old buggy systems. The step to vista is much smaller and is just more refined and prettier to look at, so for people who have perfectly working systems there isn't much incentive for them to go out and buy a whole new PC until theirs finally dies.

[jimswofford]

Market just maturing?
Slow Vista sales could just be a sign that the market is maturing. XP can do everything people need to do, and faster than Vista if computer resources are equal. The same is true for Office 2007. Not that its a bad product, but do people really need the upgrade when the older Office does everything you need and is familiar?

Microsoft may be missing the boat by continuing to add new "features" but running slower and needing more computer resources. Could the new market be cleaning up the interface and speeding up the software on existing platforms?

[mariyajokes]

I agree with Jims - that's what probably everyone now seems to be missing (besides MS) - if my XP and Office 2003 can do all that i need to do without crashing on me and much more faster than on Vista + Office 2007 then why would i want to upgrade ? I'd rather spend my time doing something useful than just waiting for my PC to finish doing whatever it is doing and then renounce it control to me (as is the case with Vista's frequent hard disk "thrashing" - they call it improved memory usage - i call it - "slow me down everytime so i can have a coffee").

[rdwalton]

Gee, I'ld like to sell 100 million copies of something and hope people say that it stinks. How is it that Apple sells a few million copies (if that) of its OS and it's the best thing since sliced bread, but Mictosoft sells hundreds of millions of copies and it stinks? GET REAL!

[alawaiblowfish]

Um most of the "copies" MS "sold" (about 80 million of them) are actually LICENSES to OEM computer makers (ie dell, HP, etc.). So they haven't actually sold that many to consumers, just to computer makers. Furthermore, the licenses they sell aren't exactly in consumer's hands just yet. MS sells licenses so when the OEM manufactures the pc, the OEM has the right to put vista on the machine.

So lets do a bit of math.....lets say there are 1 billion PCs on the market (1/6 of the world's population having access to a PC is a reasonable number, right?). Maybe only half of those PCs can run vista. OEMs aside, there are maybe 20 million people who upgraded to vista. 20 mil / 500mil = 20% of pcs are running vista or are capable of running vista. Real world numbers tell us that vista has about a 7-10% adoption rate through the end of this year. 20 mil / 100 mil (10%) = 5%. So in reality, only about 5% of windows users are running vista.

Now lets look at macs....
in 7 years, one can assume that 10 mil macs have been produced. 2 mil / 10 mil = 1/5 or 20%. So 20% of users upgraded their macs in about 2 days (since leopard sold that much at its launch)

So only 5% of PCs users are updating their computers in an entire year.
20% of mac users updated their macs in 2 days.

Do you see the significance now?

[AXG]

I have Vista Business on my laptop and Vista Ultimate on my desktop. Both are HP machines. I have been using the laptop for 8 months now and the desktop for 6 months. I do not reboot the desktop and laptop for weeks, never had a crash.

[distrophy]

I can't get over these people who run a mac, own an ipod, and consider themselves "tech savvy".... really? I run XP, vista, and ubuntu. You have to examine the user's needs before you can make a determination about how bad or good something is. The issue with Vista is that the large majority of users browse the internet and check emails which was said in another post. There is no reason for the average "tech savvy" ipod owner to go out and upgrade expensive hardware/software so they can keep posting to their blog. I put vista on a hometheater pc and it runs everything flawlessly. It's media center software is perfect and it runs applications as good as I could ask for. The only reason I haven't upgraded my main XP system is that the learning curve for Vista is annoying. It's annoying for power users because all the device settings and menus are now spread out over pretty-looking menus with descriptions instead of the easy-to-use tabs of XP. It just makes it more annoying for true tech savvy users to use, but I still don't see why all these pseudo-"tech savvy" mac boys can't figure it out - it's many times easier to use than XP for someone who knows nothing about computers. It's built better, much more reliable, and supports DX10 which is huge. I think a lot of the "bugs" and problems with Vista are due to what we call "user-error".

[chustar]

Hi Matt!
Great to see you're still flame baiting! I haven't been to your blog in a while so allow me to extend my warmest goodluck for the coming year.
As per your post about "death of desktop", I disagree. I find vista's stunted growth to be the cause of its competition with an in house product (windows xp). Perchance it would ease its way into the market place. Besides, xp is still a microsoft product and as such is still a source of revenue for them. But thats not part of the issue at hand.
You didn't explain properly, is the death of desktop the issue here or the death of windows? if it were the death of desktops, then you would unfortunately be including ubuntu and all the other (hundreds i believe) distros of linux, as well as mac. Since apple has no significant internet prescence (except for safari which, lets face it, is a joke) they'll be loosing out in the transition, leaving Opera, Firefox and Internet Explorer on the forefront.
But then, no matter how fast the internet becomes, there will never be (personal opinion here) a universal blanket of internet access. There will always be (personal opinion here) a few pocket of unconnected sectors who will be left behind of active desktop development is left behind. You are talking of the Operating System of course, not the actual physical desktops? Sure you were.
Ka O Di
Chuma

[aka_tripleB]

I think we're at a crossroad. Business users are now wanting to use thin clients for they're ease of implementation, deminishing the need for a full blown desktop OS. But for a mobile business user and home users, you will still need to have a full operating system. Microsoft should stop offering different desktop OSs, and focus on server and one full OS.

[the Otter]

I am also primarily a Mac user (and loving Leopard, despite a few annoying bugs that I expect will be fixed in the soon-to-be-released v.10.5.2), so my Vista experience is rather limited. I do have a copy of WinXP installed on my Mac?which I only use on very rare occasions when I have to do Windows-centric development?but my primary exposure to Ms Windows is through my wife?s family, most members of which use Windows as their primary OS.

Of my wife?s six siblings, only one has upgraded to Vista (despite four new computers having been purchased since its release), and that one?her oldest brother?fought with it for about a week before demanding a downgrade from Dell (much like the downgrade I, as a sys admin, had to demand from Dell in 2003, when the company I worked for purchased its first WinXP-based system. After three weeks of trying to get it connected to the network ((and by extension, the ?net)), XP was deemed by Dell to be incompatible with the Win2K server they had sold us, a few months earlier. The strangest part is that a few months later, when the company bought its first Mac, the computer saw the network on first boot, asked for permission to connect, and I never had to think about it again).

Anyway, I?m rambling, but the point is that there?s a reason most Mac users *remain* Mac users, and it?s not just cuz it?s pretty, or whatever. Microsoft really seems to have bitten the big one with Vista, and consumers have decided to shove it back in the company?s collective face.

[ppgreat]

I just assisted a family two days ago in trying to get their files migrated from their old Compaq to their new Dell running Vista. After 3 hours on the phone with a very polite Dell rep, no go. They are now going through the steps of downgrading to XP, since my friend doesn't want to go out and buy new peripherals.

Which would be an interesting stat to track down for someone. How many of these Vista sales have resulted in downgrades?

As a side note, the Dell rep said they are being trained to liken the transition of XP to Vista to the transition from OS 9 to OS X. When I brought up how ridiculous this was (OS X was a full-fledged move to a UNIX-based operating system for pete's sake, while Vista still shares the code base with XP), he kind of apologized and said that was what they were being told to say.

[Notofsoundmind]

I still use Windows 2000. I believe it to be Microsoft's only good operating system.
it doesn't hog memory like XP or Vista and seems very stable. However, at some point I
am going to eventually switch to a Unix variant (Linux, BSD? Don't know yet) and ditch
Microsoft altogether. "Why?" you ask? Because I am tired of the Bill Gates Juggernaut
dictating to me what I will buy and how much I will buy it for. I am tired of Microsoft's strong hold on the gaming market, and I am tired of the federal government's lethargic
response to Microsoft's boderline illegal marketing strategies. Any other company would
have been called out on their behavior, but we are so deeply addicted to Windows that
we just can't give it up. I challenge all of you to switch from Windows to one of the free
Unix variants. Efforts are being made to make Linux and the BSD variants compatible
with games, and being that some of them are open source are probably more secure
and streamlined than the bloated dead rotware that Windows is.

[Groucho6]

Yes, it sucks. Case closed

[Ron Geiken]

Seems like a lot of users with new computers that have duo or quad processors or 2 to 4 gig of ram are quite happy with Vista. At the moment, I am very happy. If you seem to be having problems, it could be third party software. My copy of Spy-Ware Doctor was causing my system to have serious problems, but after disabling and finally removing it from the System, my Vista is working fine and I am glad to be using it. I especially like the Gadget column and am making full use of that. I have time, temperature, date, performance monitoring, and quick access to my hard drives by clicking on a gadget that provides instant access to any of the hard drives that you have selected. As far as all my XP type programs, they are working great, and Word and Excel launch in about 4 or 5 seconds. Firefox and Thunderbird launch most of the time within 10 to 15 seconds. All my other third party software is equally quick. Nothing on my computer would take as long as 30 seconds to launch except perhaps Studio 10 which is a very powerful video editing program.

Ram is currently selling for less that $100 for 2 gig or 4 gig on sale at Fry's Electronics. For a serious user, there is no reason to be limping along on 1 gig or less of ram.

I am always a little bit concerned with new Vista updates though that they could cause possible problems, and especially SP1. I will wait on that one until I hear what kind of problems people are having.

MS online support seems to be good. Back when programs were tuning down too often, a report was sent to Microsoft to look at the cause of the crash, and as of Jan 1, 2008, those kind of crashes seem to have faded into the background

Don't be afraid of Vista, it won't bite and maybe you will enjoy it. Obviously this is not a recommendation for businesses which may want to wait longer to update if they have XP installed on their computers.

[brucerads]

Vista is a big POS. Bloated, full of bugs and vastly overpriced. If you had a Mac, the Leopard upgrade was $129.00. And Vista is nothing more than a cheesy copy of the Mac OS 10. For all the billions MSFT makes you'd think they would have been able to produce a quality product. I think Gates' charitable giving is motivated by guilt from selling such lousy products for so many years.

[8026mn]

Last time I checked if you had upgraded the 5 times in the past 5 years you would have spent more than upgrading from xp to vista. And also have you actually tried it? or just typing this from other FUD you've been hearing about it

[Penguinisto]

It's rather obvious that the desktop isn't dying yet...

Compare Vista's sluggish growth with OSX/Apple's explosive growth in the desktop market, then compare that with Ubuntu's (also greater than Vista) growth rates.

It ain't the desktop... Vista really is crap, and folks have by and large figured that out. Astroturfing and MSFT shills aside, it's slower, less efficient, bogs down, can't copy more than a certain number of files w/o crashing... bah! Who needs to pay money for crap like that?

Most folks are sticking with XP or going elsewhere, to OSX and Linux.

/P

[8026mn]

How do you know have you actually used it? or just heard the FUD about it? I have Vista, and dont have the issues your talking about.

[Penguinisto]

Yes, I am stuck with using it in some instances @ work, and yes, it is buggy, bloated, and all-around crap when compared to even XP on the same hardware.

[Würlitzer]

Enough already! The vista bashing on the web is starting to just sound ridiculous.

"It´s a memory hog." Yes it is built to use the RAM, that´s why it´s there. RAM is quicker than the HD. Enough said. (Linux does that too)

"Vista is buggy." Tell me of one OS that isn´t. That´s right, YOU CAN NOT BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. So far all of the ugs I´ve encountered have been due to crap drivers and last time I checked that wasn´t MS fault.

"Vista doesn´t work on my old PC." It has worked on all of my PC´s, but then again I´m not stupid and try to install it on a P3 with 512 Mb of RAM. Although it runs just fine on my 3 year old laptop with a P4, 1 Gb of RAM and a nVidia Graphics card.

"XP is much better" Perhaps it is for your old PC or your purposes. Good for you, why upgrade if you are satisfied. But don´t start ranting about stuff you haven´t even tried out yourself.

"Swap to Linux." Guess what, I tried Ubuntu 7.10 on my year old Dell XPS M1710, it could not find the correct graphics driver or the get the sound right, same thing on a PC based on an Intel 910 Mainboard with a standard Realtek AC97 soundcrad.

It is my opinion that unless you are buying a new PC, don´t consider Vista unless the PC you have is modern. And one more thing, not even Vista is safe when it comes users with **** for brains who think that RAM optimizers are an absolute must.

[iBuzz]

In my experience, I found it ironic in that the people who seem to like Vista the most are the ones who are using it primarily to access web-based services like the article talks about.

Those, like myself, who have tried to use our old desktop applications with it ran into nothing but problems. So, think about this... because of its compatibility problems with desktop applications, Vista could actually drive more people away from the desktop and on to use web applications! It's the ultimate in irony!

[8026mn]

You mean the 10 year old programs that were built for Windows 95 that you never upgraded? Does the 10 year old Mac or linux programs work just as well when you load it on Leapord?

[8026mn]

I have XP, Ubuntu, Vista, Mac Leapord etc. etc.

Despite all of the FUD that is going around about Vista it has a lot of good things and is very usable. Due to people like this author spreading more FUD about vista there are a LOT of people now questioning if Vista and windows is still the way to go. Dont forget MS didn't spend ALL of there time developing Vista, there was a lot of time they spent on Windows XP SP2 for security issues that improved XP a lot, then spent 2 1/2 years with Vista and yes they sacrifised features to get something usable out the door but they are switching to the 2 year schedule 1 for the second version and the next verison will be the next major version so expect some very good things yet to come.

The Desktop is NOT dead as you still have times where you CANNOT be connected to the internet, and until then the desktop will NOT be dead as you still need ways to get your work done or do whatever it is you do locally without the internet, perhaps play a game or watch a movie.

Yes there are alternatives like Mac and Linux which is welcome compitition as most people thought Microsoft was a Monopoly but they are NOT there just wasn't great alternatives that could really compete with them at the same level and now there is thanks to Apple and Linux coming which is getting better but still is not quite as good and broad as Windows and Apple so they still are third in my mind behind Apple and Microsoft being the leader.

I will say Apple has done a great job with taking the momentium of the ipod and using that idea to transform what the Mac does and listening to people and rebuilding it ontop of composix 3.0 certified OS i.e. linux for the most part which linux fans love a lot and I do also and integrating everything so it all works together by controlling the hardware they put out unlike Microsoft and allowing OEMs to do this for them which Apple definatally has the advantage. If MS tried to do the same thing I'm sure they would face numerious lawsuits but I'm not sure why they have not tried to go that way or at least looked into it to see if they could build a better hardware product for example the xbox 360 and yes they have had there fair share of issues with there second generation product but its been very successful and I'm sure the third generation will be even better. Now if they could integrate there Windows Live, Zune Marketplace, Vista and have a cell phone that could compete and integrate it as well as apple has with the ipod I would love to see that, Hardware wise the zune is virtually identical as the ipod but the interface is different.

My point is don't count MS out, and the Web being only way to do things.

[Skilbarton]

I can't think of anything I can't do with XP that requires me to move to a new OS. Vista just isn't necessary. For those of us that do our own IT, it 's no fun anymore to tackle a new operating system. I just want my computer to run and network properly with a set or mature drivers that accomodates the majority of peripherals that are out there. And I don't need Vista for that.

[pgh]

The question isn't whether or not Vista is terrible, It's not. As many have said, it's a decent operating system. The real question is whether it's worth the considerable cost to upgrade from XP. And that's where the problem lies. There's just not enough there to warrant the expenditure.

For those of us who are tech savvy, it gets worse because Vista was supposed to have a new file system, something that MS has been promising for years. Had MS delivered on this promise, I would have upgraded months ago. File systems have stalled in the MS world. A this stage in history, we should have smart folders, an integral database, and configurable rules. MS needs to integrate the SQL Server engine and the file system. This would facilitate search tools as well as provide means to better organize information. As it is, we're still stuck with little more that the ability to name files, folders and arrange them in a tree structure. Unix had this decades ago. Meanwhile, Apple has been adding some of the features of advanced file systems (Time Machine). The bad news is that there's no real promise of anything new in the forseeable future. Hopefully, there are serious discussions going on within MS and that MS is changing its ways. But I'm no holding my breath.