Comments on: How popular is Vista?

For each Vista user there are 8 Windows XP users

[WARLORD357]

great info.
windows vista it very crappy

[probinette]

Why? What does 'crappy' mean in acomputer sense? Is it too fast, too cool for you, or just the 'in' thing to say at this time? Maybe it takes more money than you can afford - and therefore you think it is too expensive for you to upgrade your software, memory and/or computer? "It very crappy" is not terribly informative for the people reading this.

[Halo9X]

As a Mac user I have only a little experience with either XP or Vista. However, I have ordered XP for my iMac (INTEL) since everyone seems to think Vista is not that good. Hopefully, I made the right choice for my second OS.

[mkaz91]

Overall, Vista is better. The graphics, the UI, the security, and the features are all better. People tend to blow Vista's problems out of proportion. It is much better overall than XP. People are just so used to XP, they find it difficult to make a switch. This is another reason why Vista's delay was bad. People got too comfortable with XP. You have to remember too, that when XP came out, there were lots of complaints about it. It was new, something totally different from Windows 9x. Give Vista some time, and don't let other people decide what operating system is best for you. If you want a truly honest review of Vista, then go to (http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winvista.asp) It is one of the better and unbiased reviews out there. The author likes both Mac and Windows, so he doesn' really bash either one. He really puts things in perspective and looks at the bigh picture instead of focusing on admittidedly small problems. You should read his review before making a decision.

[zlguocius]

There should be no apostrophe in your second sentence, "... Vista just had its first birthday."

"Its" is a possessive, and "It's" is a contraction of "it is".

It's a happy dog that wags its tail.

[REwright]

Thank God the Grammar Police showed up, or this never would have made any sense to me. I was born with a genetic defect; I am incapable of taking the meaning from the context, so I rely on the Grammar Police to step in and correct minuscule errors like this for me. I am saved! Thank you, ziguocius!

"It's discourteous to correct other's grammar when one's feedback hasn't been solicited."

[forkboy]

I don't know....I'm using Vista Home Premium on my Dec. 2007 purchased laptop and I haven't found it to be that bad. We run XP Pro on our home-built PC and XP Media Center on another laptop. They have been just fine and I feel very comfortable with XP as I know where everything is and how it works, etc. I confess I wasn't thrilled with the idea of jumping into Vista, especially after the tonnes of bad press it has received. But thus far I don't have any deal-breaking complaints about it. It seems that Vista is trying to be a better OS, but isn't quite up to the level that is Tiger or Leopard from Apple.

Certainly there are some things I don't like much about Vista; the biggest being the incredibly slow start-up time (I mean really....the 5-minute screen saver kicks in before the damn thing is done loading and this is on a 1.9GHz AMD Turion 64x2 with 2GB RAM laptop).

Otherwise I think Vista is receiving more bad press than my experiences thus far support. It could be one of those circular things whereby some give it a bad wrap (and perhaps rightfully so from their particular point of view) in the media and so it puts off folks from buying it, which leads to more bad press about how folks aren't buying Vista, etc.

[probinette]

I must say that I agree with you that Vista is not that bad - as a matter of fact I have two identical laptops, one with Vista and the other with XP. I prefer the Vista machine because it seems that the OS is more 'seamless' with the software. I have to admit it is difficult to pinpoint the reasons I like Vista but I can say that I find no fault with Vista at this time.
(knock on rock)
:-)

[Jdiep]

A bit early to be making statistical analyses of xp versus vista. Most people are not ready to update their computers, once they do then vista will no doubt trump xp. It's a changing time, if you want you can say that xp is more popular compared to 95, which was a revolution in its day. Or you could say that vista is more popular than 95 and conclude that it must be better and because 95 was such a revolutionary change in operating systems than vista must be an even bigger one.
In the end comparisons of this type are so floored that it is improper to make them. XP may be better, it may not be, this is not the issue, the issue is that the direct comparison of these statistics are invalid, and lack any reliability.
If you wish to make the comparison of which is best, compare the products side by side, take into consideration technalogical advances of the last so many years, factor in inflation and other financial changes over the same time period, factor in customer expectations, changes in usage (eg, laptop use has increased), etc, etc, but these statistical comparisons ignore so many of these and more factors.

(Disclaimer: I am a public health scientist and get very annoyed when statistics are abused to "prove" something that is too complex to be explained simply by focusing on one set of statistics without taking every factor into consideration)

[lewac]

Jdiep.. you're a scientist and thus you've definitely got a headsup in the IQ department so how come you're not running the latest from the ubuntu camp? yeah the learning curve with most distro's of linux is rather nasty still. but ubuntu makes the progression from windoze (regardless of version) to linux a pretty easy one. go here "http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download" and download the iso then burn (it fits on a CDR). set your machine to boot from CD and see if it loads up (btw NOTHING is actually installed... as all the little bitties are stored in RAM). it probably will and once you reach the gooey see if you got lights, camera, action (sound, video, connectivity). if you get this far then have a closer look! remember Rome wasn't built in a day so don't expect to become an instant linux guru. and to pique your interest if you think you're not really interested google "linux wine". uhh... it may take about 5 minutes or so for this "live CD" to find everything but remember that it's loading from a CD!

[mados123]

My sentiments as well. Statistics are often manipulated to prove ones position, and then the author says "See, the numbers support it!" and then those who choose not to think go along like lemmings.

[mhinnewyork]

My point here was not to re-open the debate about Vista vs. XP. Been there done that. Haven't we all at this point. Instead, I'm offering real-life stats about how popular the two versions of Windows are, within the realm of Windows users.
To: Jdiep. This is not a statistical analysis of one OS vs. another, it is a count of website activity. Nothing more. These numbers do not "prove" anything nor were they meant to or even implied to. And, whatever else this posting is, it certainly is not "floored".
Michael Horowitz

[john55440]

For most people, Vista means buying a new computer, so of course adoption will be comparatively slow.

[Jdiep]

I appologise, if my post implied that the article was "floored", I understand that you are reporting fact. That is, you are reporting website activity. I may have been a bit forward, but I mean no disrespect.
What I find "floored" is any arguement that we may purely debate the pros and cons of vista v XP by the use of ownership statistics.
We can not state that one product is better than another by comparing how many people use it. I would be interested to hear whether people like or dislike vista in a year or so when more people update their computers.

So to Mr Horowitz, I am sorry if you took offence to my post, I am not arguing that your article is floored, i am arguing that any statement that vista is better than xp based on these statistics is a floored arguement. I have re-read your article and see that you did not make such a statement, and as such I apologise for my over-zellous post previously.

[ruminator]

Hey Defenseless Dude...the "public health scientist" can't be much of a "scientist" if s/he criticizes your blog for misusing statistics but doesn't or can't really explain why the statistics are "abused."

But s/he's not wrong. You brush off "market research" because of small sample sizes and indirectly say"we are left with "website usage" statistics. By what flawed [aka floored] geek thinking process did you come to that conclusion? Obviously, you shouldn't read a geek column for statistical analysis. You are in SOOO over your head. A sample size can be as small as 8 (small enough for you?) and still be valid and be the basis for reliable conclusions. The number of the sample itself can be determined to be valid or not. Once a valid sample is determined, the statistician can seek conclusions based on degrees of reliability and margin of error. I'm in over my head (with my statistics 101 from a small midwest college) but "market researchers" whom you insult either have a statistics background or rely on statisticians to perform the studies for basing their conclusions. You don't have any inkling of what market research is all about and what goes into it. The bottom line is we are NOT left with website usage statistics.

But even if we werestuck with usage statistics... Your geek logic is flawed because the mere "hits" or "visits" does not seem to account for repeats by the same Windows user. Theoretically, 512,683 hits could've been the same bozo with a lot of time on her hands. Then, we could have ONE XP user for every 8 Vista users...

You deny what you're even using the statistics for; but one thing's for sure--your "usage" statistics are "useless." Clemens said there are lies, damn lies and statistics; but he left out the damn lyin statistics in the hands of someone who doesn't know how to properly use them.

[mhinnewyork]

To:Jdiep
I am not debating the pros/cons of Vista vs. XP. Elsewhere in the history of this blog I have said that XP is the better option for Windows users, but even that was not meant as a statement that XP is "better".

[Middletown]

interesting analysis. Although one cannot discern between home and office visits, it is apparent that XP still dominates the OS on PC's prowling the net.

[delf76]

Of course there's more Windows XP machines..... IT's been out longer than Vista. What a dumb comparison.

This is like saying there are more 2007 Ford Vehicles on the road than 2008 Ford Vehicles, therefore, all 2008 vehicles must be horrible... That's misleading.

I do find it funny some people are still using Windows 3.1 though.... It really makes me wonder the accuracy of these stats.

[frasercrane]

"I've said before that I think Windows XP is the better choice for Windows users than Vista. Apparently, many of you agree with me." Just because there are more hits/visits on a website doesn't mean anyone agrees with you that XP is "the better choice." The other posters have good objections. Also, did you consider the possibility those XP users stuck with XP for other reasons? Maybe, it was too costly to upgrade to Vista. Maybe, their machines weren't equipped to handle Vista. In fact, your reliance on web usage is faulty. Arbitrarily picking a website and a month is far from unbiased. There has to be an element of randomness...with all other factors controlled. If you had chosen the same site in January 2006, you'd be 100% winner because there'd have been zero Vista users.

[gregnockolds]

Why not analyse the cnet web statistics rather than a site for java testers or an un-named radio station. I'm as dissapointed with Vista as any Windows user and would not be surprised by the stated ratios (what they actually mean seems to be questionable) its just that the sampling method is pretty lame and hence just adds more weight to the argument - Why did you bother?....

[sealynx]

I have been thinking about buying a new desktop. The high end HP's are still available with XP. That is a definit plus for me. I think Vista is a lot like ME was, big, bulky and in the end I predict ...unstable. I would much rather save my animation power for my animation programs than waste it on all the "cool" little things Vista does.

[hignett4854]

I agree that Vista is not all its made out to be. I've run with XP since it came out and only changed to Vista because it came pre-load on HP unit I purchased. I found that as other comments, takes too long to load, and I have intel core 2, lots of ram and hard drive. The HP printer stoped working with it and after tech support helped still does not work like it use to with XP program. I found adding new drivers was a nightmare and system was hanging too much. End up uninstalling every single program that wasn't used , not to mention clean ups, to finally get it to work without problems. I don't remember having these problems with XP, but also remember ME being a big problem when I first ran that.

[michael7272nalder]

zlguocius.... keep seein ur name up correctin people or correctin others posts like ur opinion is fact....aggressive style etc....get a life u sad sack./,/.,908098&*(*&^ <hows this 4 spellin n grammer?>

[michael7272nalder]

everyone else on here gives me insight into the lowdown on products in there opinion n dont force nothin... love ya'll all!

[michael7272nalder]

any-hoo...breath..lol. Any1 got any idea what i should pay for a 2nd hand hp laptop without a hd...model nx5000? i think he said nx......hmmmmm.

[michael7272nalder]

[e-mail] any 1 no what is downside to knowin how to own brand spankin copys of xp and vista and codes to not need validation....funny feelin i shouldn't know how to internet bank with the sort of knowledge i've got lyin here.... kaspersky for free...that shouldnt happen either should it?

[michael7272nalder]

neve pay another phone bill wit bt? or any mobile network?