Vista Sales Up 47 Percent Since July

[Bundy]

looks like im a loner but ive got XP Home, XP pro and Vista Home premium. Vista works the best i got to say but it is running on the highest spec computer i have. Vista did have quite a few issues early on but they seem to be fixed now. I would think it is the best choice for a new system. XP machines are probably best not upgrading though because Vista isn't 'that' much better.

 

[Ravenas]

I guess i fall into the 2% category.

Anyway...you mention long boot times. I dont have that and never did. Sure I do some tweaks here and there and do a no GUI boot (which in my opinion looks better in vista than the damn default loading bar), I get around 25-30 seconds boot up. Maybe shorter. Dunno. Never really timed it. Just giving a rough estimate. My point is is that my boot up with Vista x64 isnt slow and never had been with either my quad core or my Old rig_2 in my sig.

No one would expect your boot ups to be slow based on your hardware.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

No one would expect your boot ups to be slow based on your hardware.

They werent slow on my single core (not in sig) or my dual core (in sig). I did not have RAID at that time. Not until I got my current setup.

Actually, now that I look at it, my single core was basically what my dad's rig looks like but with 1GB of DDR400 and instead of an Abit board, it was a Gigabyte GA-K8NSC-939. (loved that mobo)

 

[F-22]

... and more basic than that, vista is a resource hog.

That's what ppl said when XP came out. "OMG Do not run XP unless you have 256 MB of ram!"

That's like saying Crysis, UT3, CoD4, GTA4, FF13, MAC OSX, Starcraft II, etc... are garbage because they require more resources than the previous versions.

The "resource hog" argument is pretty lame and I'm getting tired of it. It's not like 4gb of ram now is the same price as it was 2 years ago.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

That's what ppl said when XP came out. "OMG Do not run XP unless you have 256 MB of ram!"

That's like saying Crysis, UT3, CoD4, GTA4, FF13, MAC OSX, Starcraft II, etc... are garbage because they require more resources than the previous versions.

The "resource hog" argument is pretty lame and I'm getting tired of it. It's not like 4gb of ram now is the same price as it was 2 years ago.

FINALLY!!! Someone who gets it!

 

[hat]

I get it too. But I still refuse to even pirate try vista until Microshaft fixes it.

Sales up 47%? That's rape. Microsoft is metophorically raping the PC market.

 

[ex_reven]

I get it too. But I still refuse to even pirate try vista until Microshaft fixes it.

Sales up 47%? That's rape. Microsoft is metophorically raping the PC market.

Some of us enjoy rape.

 

[Airbrushkid]

47% up from what? Heres a post I just saw on another forun.

88 million total over the last year, and of those ~70% shipped in the first three months. That means that sales have essentially plummeted over the last nine months.

Also, those figures do not take into account the millions of users--like me, for instance--who have downgraded back to XP. (For the record, I actually liked Vista after I disabled the UAC, but I do a lot of video editing, and the performance hit just became intolerable. So I figured I wait for SP1.)

 

[ShadowXP]

But I still refuse to even pirate try vista until Microshaft fixes it.

Mind enlightening us about what's actually broken about it?

I've been running Vista Ultimate since RTM, and I've had one issue with it: drivers for my X-Fi ExtremeAudio. Had to run the XP-drivers until Creative got off their lazy butts and actually made a Vista-driverset for the card. Apart from that: NADA problems or issues that I haven't caused myself, either through stupidity or because I didn't know what the hell I was doing.

1gb RAM isn't enough to run Vista, or games under Vista? Bull. I ran Beta 2 with 768mb RAM on a P4 2.40ghz craptastic comp, with a Radeon 9550-card. Even gamed on it. True, I had to deactivate Aero, and I couldn't run the games at absolute maximum. But I ran it at the same settings as when I ran XP without issues. It was also marginally faster (2 to 5 fps) than in XP. And that was late Beta 2. I even ran RTM on it, but because of the driver-issue with the X-Fi, I went back to XP. And that, ladies and gentlemen, isn't Microsoft's fault. Especially not when Creative, and every other hardware-supplier, had over three years to cough up a driverset that was compatible.

The same debate that's raging about Vista now showed up when Windows XP showed up. It's EXACTLY the same, with EXACTLY the same crap that's being spewed out over and over again. Vista is broken! Vista is a bug-ridden mess! Vista doesn't work! Bah!

I'll admit that Vista isn't, just like every other piece of software, be it from Apple or a flavor of Linux, bug-free. With that many lines of code it's impossible to squash them all regardless of how much money you spend on it (Ever heard of the fun little Dateline-bug that the F22 Raptor-aircraft experienced, despite each of them costing quite a bit of $$?). That being said, Vista isn't even half as bad as all the naysayers harp until it's a repetitive drone of regurgitated crap much like a Britney Spears-record.

If anyone wants to label me as a Vista-fanboi after this post, so be it. The fact still remains that there's been less trouble with Vista than people claim, and that to the N'th degree. Quit being afraid of everything that's new, quit spewing regurgitated, one-sided articles, and try it for yourself for a while. And with "a while", I mean a few weeks, not just install it, go "This SUCKS!" and then go back to XP.

 

[craigwhiteside]

u need at least 2gb to make any use of vista, and even then once you see past all the gimmicky add-ons that dont do much your left with a useless os that hogs all your system resources
i have dual boot vista and xp, i use xp for almost everything, while vista i use for halo 2 online xD, and thats about it really lol.
when will people realise its exactly like windows ME with a custom paint job
shadedshushadedshushadedshu

 

[ex_reven]

u need at least 2gb to make any use of vista, and even then once you see past all the gimmicky add-ons that dont do much your left with a useless os that hogs all your system resources
i have dual boot vista and xp, i use xp for almost everything, while vista i use for halo 2 online xD, and thats about it really lol.
when will people realise its exactly like windows ME with a custom paint job
shadedshushadedshushadedshu

:shadedshu
NO WAY!
Vista can not be compared to ME.

ME makes baby jesus cry.

 

[EastCoasthandle]

That's what ppl said when XP came out. "OMG Do not run XP unless you have 256 MB of ram!"

That's like saying Crysis, UT3, CoD4, GTA4, FF13, MAC OSX, Starcraft II, etc... are garbage because they require more resources than the previous versions.

The "resource hog" argument is pretty lame and I'm getting tired of it. It's not like 4gb of ram now is the same price as it was 2 years ago.

This is a pretty bias opinion. There is nothing fundamentally different about Vista that would make the masses change over from XP besides the fact that it's "Pretty, pretty, shiny, shiny".
-DX10 is a complete bust. DX10 games like in Crysis can have the exact same features in DX9. Most other DX10 games have very little DX10 features at the cost of frame rate hit, etc
-Vista does have issues with virtual memory management!
-Most who upgrade to Vista usually buy 4 Gigs of ram! Look at CrAsHnBuRnXp specs for proof. 4 Gigs of ram for most programs and games that at most, require 2 Gigs of ram is the principle of contradiction.
-Most importantly, 2gig per stick ram is NOT mainstream for most people (as there is no demand from most applications/games). While others buy 4, 1 gig sticks. This can create problems when OC'ing lower end CPUs at their dual ram stick FSB freq.
-No Vista specific programs/games that imply or suggest that the majority use Vista
-SP1 is looking to NOT be Vista's Savior
-People are going back to XP from Vista.

Therefore, when some take off their fanboy glasses they clearly see a series of concerns the consumers have with Vista. These are only a few I am sure there are other concerns as some already suggested. No excuse will levy with people why they should migrate to Vista just because a remote few say "Vista is ok"! Some with 4gigs of ram using Vista should simply admit that Vista is not an OS for everyone however what we do read are those that ridicule, put down, insult and name call others with the common sense to see that Vista offers nothing compelling nor practical addition to their everyday needs.

 

[ShadowXP]

u need at least 2gb to make any use of vista, and even then once you see past all the gimmicky add-ons that dont do much your left with a useless os that hogs all your system resources

It is strange, then, that I've run Vista quite well with 768mb RAM, and neither did nor have problems with Vista hogging resources, on either of the two systems I've run Vista on.

Care to explain me why this is so?

 

[craigwhiteside]

maybe u got lucky and vista likes ur computer, or your more used to a slower computer than the rest of us, and our ideas of fine are different

 

[EastCoasthandle]

maybe u got lucky and vista likes ur computer, or your more used to a slower computer than the rest of us, and our ideas of fine are different

Or you could look at his system spec and see he's actually using 2 Gigs of ram

 

[AsRock]

That's what ppl said when XP came out. "OMG Do not run XP unless you have 256 MB of ram!"

That's like saying Crysis, UT3, CoD4, GTA4, FF13, MAC OSX, Starcraft II, etc... are garbage because they require more resources than the previous versions.

The "resource hog" argument is pretty lame and I'm getting tired of it. It's not like 4gb of ram now is the same price as it was 2 years ago.

But people want \ need more resources for there games not there OS. So why use more resources to run your OS and have less for your gaming.

XP takes less resource's there fore having more for gaming. As a gamers thats the better overall option. As why would you want less chance to be able to run your games.


and a lot of those who got Vista did they not exchange it for XP and the Vista sale counted even if they did not have it.

 

[ShadowXP]

Or you could look at his system spec and see he's actually using 2 Gigs of ram

I haven't updated that specs since I started hang out here, so the correct amount is actually 4gb. I started out, however, at 1Gb until I found a use for my brain besides separating my ears with it and actually upgraded. Vista performed OK even at 1gb. Of course, I won't sit here and say that it didn't help going to 2Gb.

 

[TheGuruStud]

FINALLY!!! Someone who gets it!

NO!!! STOP THE IGNORANCE. AN OS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE RESOURCE TAXING, especially sitting at idle. Just stop with the "it's new and needs faster hardware" crap. No, no, no and no.
Any OS worth it's proverbial nuts doesn't bog med-high end hardware. The same with XP as someone else said before. The slowness of XP was not fixed, but rather hardware became so fast that XP couldn't run slow any more. NAME one OS, just ONE, that runs like shit on hardware that's 2-3 yrs old. You can't b/c it only exists in M$ world where it take them 1000 lines of code to write something that should've taken 10. Vista is XP everyone, get over it. It's the same kernel, etc, except that it's rigged it to infinity to pile on aero.....and well that's about it.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

u need at least 2gb to make any use of vista, and even then once you see past all the gimmicky add-ons that dont do much your left with a useless os that hogs all your system resources
i have dual boot vista and xp, i use xp for almost everything, while vista i use for halo 2 online xD, and thats about it really lol.
when will people realise its exactly like windows ME with a custom paint job
shadedshushadedshushadedshu

How the hell can you even say that? ME is the worst possible OS in the history of OS's and Vista is no where near that. When people like you compare it to Windows ME it really makes me laugh because then that just tells me that 1) Your a Microsoft hater, 2) You have never even used Vista or you have for 5 minutes and decided to merit judgement when the time you alloted to it doesnt even allow for proper judgement 3)Or you just jump on the Vista hate bandwagon because your system cant run it.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

NO!!! STOP THE IGNORANCE. AN OS IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE RESOURCE TAXING, especially sitting at idle. Just stop with the "it's new and needs faster hardware" crap. No, no, no and no.
Any OS worth it's proverbial nuts doesn't bog med-high end hardware. The same with XP as someone else said before. The slowness of XP was not fixed, but rather hardware became so fast that XP couldn't run slow any more. NAME one OS, just ONE, that runs like shit on hardware that's 2-3 yrs old. You can't b/c it only exists in M$ world where it take them 1000 lines of code to write something that should've taken 10. Vista is XP everyone, get over it. It's the same kernel, etc, except that it's rigged it to infinity to pile on aero.....and well that's about it.

Well then if you know its a Microsoft thing, STOP COMPLAINING ABOUT IT!

I ran Vista on a single core A64 3200+ with 1GB of RAM and a 6800GS AGP card and it ran smooth as butter. Now that is a low end system.

If you stop and think about it, XP IS Windows 2000.

There are so many people out there who would rather bitch about a god damn piece of software rather than use something else its pathetic. If you dont like what Microsoft does with their OS's, dont use them. That simple. Go to Apple or Linux. I cant beleive the amount of fanboyism that goes around the internet anymore. It is just insane.

I have used Vista for the last year now with no problems. You call it a resource hog when Vista runs 100% fine with 2GB of RAM. Hell it runs fine with 1GB. But if you play games, you will want that extra GB to smooth out the experience. Now before anyone complains about that last sentence, XP is the same way. It ran fine on 512MB of RAM, but in order to smooth things out, you wanted 1GB or more. Same applies here with Vista.
EDIT: To add, everyone wants Microsoft to implement all these features into a new OS. When Microsoft does this, everyone complains about how much space it takes and how many resources it absorbs. However, if Microsoft didnt give the users what they want, the users would complain (still) that Microsoft isnt listening to their customers by giving them what they want. So it's a lose lose for Microsoft. How can one expect to have all these features and gadgets and not have it eat away at hard drive space and system memory? Hell, you add extensions to Firefox (given how many you have installed of course) will add to more memory usage.

So you are telling me with the way current hardware is right now, you would rather have the OS speed up rather than getting faster hardware which is an inevitability anyway especially if you are a gamer? Even for the users who just check their email, the speed of the computer is fast enough.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

But people want \ need more resources for there games not there OS. So why use more resources to run your OS and have less for your gaming.

XP takes less resource's there fore having more for gaming. As a gamers thats the better overall option. As why would you want less chance to be able to run your games.


and a lot of those who got Vista did they not exchange it for XP and the Vista sale counted even if they did not have it.

Any gamer is going to have twice the amount of what a normal user would just for optimal gaming experience. The reason why people have 4GB or more today is not just because of the OS, but because of how much RAM and CPU usage games require these days. Having that extra RAM however, will help out when you are browsing through the system itself and with faster boot times.

 

[newbielives]

WinXP with 1GB > then Vista with 1GB
Vista with 3GB > then WinXp with 3GB

I like how Vista uses up all my memory and adapts to my software use habbits.

I wouldn't use Vista in a business setting but for home entertainment use, it's great and surprisingly compatible with most 32bit XP apps.

 

[CrAsHnBuRnXp]

You have 4GB of system RAM and Vista eats it all? Impossible.

 

[Deleted member 24505]

I've used vista for the last 6mths.It seems just as fast as xp now,and i dont care that you need 2gb for it,who has'nt got 2gb ram now?.All my games work fine and i like te media centre.If people dont like it,just dont use it,simple.

 

[FatForester]

I don't really understand why people are going ape shit over this, but it's hilarious! XP is just ilke Vista was when it was released. Don't you guys remember how long it took people to move from 98SE to XP? It took some people YEARS. And for the people that like to play the "Vista is a resource hog!!" card.. most updates to software are like this. Vista likes to run with 2GB of RAM, but so does XP! Most people here that have XP have 2GB, because that become the basic standard for gaming. Especially since RAM is cheap as chips, it isn't that much of an issue. And like tigger69 said, if you don't like it, don't use it! (... or tweak it)