Windows Vista near collapse, says Gartner

Haha, if M$ ever goes belly up, I'm gonna party line it's 1999.

Seriously, though, slow adoption rate of Vista? Why would anyone in their right mind WANT to switch to bloated trash when it's predecessor does the job pretty well, and all without the bloat?

 

For once I agree with Disciple. XP works fine. No need for Vista whatsoever.

 

And trust me, this will NOT become a habit.

 

That's not going to happen because XP support has been extended until 2010 and...

... and said replacement is due to be out in 2009. Now if that replacement tanks as badly as Vista did, then yeah, maybe MS will be in trouble. Highly doubtful though.

So I'd have to say Gartner is being an alarmist. MS has been making profits in the billions for over a decade. One or two years of decreased profit is really, really not going to make any difference. There is simply no way this can be enough to send the company crashing, or even to make a significant dent. Besides, new PCs that are being shipped without Vista are being shipped with XP instead - which means MS are still making money out of almost every PC that is being bought, regardless of how badly Vista is doing.

 

I am not dissapointed whit vista. It runs nice and stable and has not locked up or crashed after I found the bad memory simm. Performance is less, I agree, but still for a new pc that is strong enough it is the logical choice. No way that MS is going to release a new one as soon as 2009.

The trick for MS is to avoid lawsuits that can restrict certain products. I hope that their monopoly will be broken, and OEM manufacturers are forced to ship their computers whitout an operating system.

 

Gimme a ring when that goes down, I'll bring toast.

Damn straight Vista's failing, it's the worst excuse for an OS I've ever seen. I'd prefer 95 to that puddle of rubbish.

 

Haha, that's the kind of attitude I like! I'll add you to the guests of honor list for sure.

And back to crappy ol' Vista... my former workplace was adamantly against it. We would do it on special order, but not until the customer has succesfully persuaded us of the benefits of having Vista and not XP. It happened only once.

Often, though, I'd get HP/Dell laptops with Vista pre-installed, and my job was to nuke Vista and do a fresh XP install.

I also can't help but find it ironic that Vista's successor might drop next year. I hope for the sake of Winblows users that this next version has less bloat and is less of a resource hog than Vista is. Until then, I'll stick with XP for my gaming needs, not because I like it, mind you, but because it works.

 

MS went through this with ME, and Vista is viewed by many as much the same situation. I've been running both Vista and XP on the same computer, and really, despite the critics, I've encountered few problems with Vista, unlike ME, which really was their worst OS in recent years. The all time worst is 3.1; it almost drove me back to Apple. After Win98, I considered the same move, but XP changed that. I would still like to tinker with Apple though at some point....But I despise anything based on Usucks. The less I have to do with anything UNIX, the happier I am....

 

I'll have to take the other side and disagree with you - now that I have gotten BSD up and running (which is, just so you know, a direct descendent of UNIX), I'm never looking back... I'm done with Linux and Apple. Sure, BSD/UNIX is no piece of cake (to put it mildly), but it's totally worth it.

 

That's the point I'm not sure about. Going that route is a great way to accumulate a lot of technical knowledge and you can wind up with a finely tuned, customized OS - but there's a lot of tinkering. But really, a lot of us just don't have that kind of time. UNIX is a "time thief."

 

Time thief? Look at it anyway you want, Chandos, but the mandatory antivirus/malware scans Winblows require eat the same amount of time in the long than it initially takes to get NIX tuned up to one's perticular tastes. NIX requires next to zero maintenance too.

But we're getting off-topic, so I'll leave it at that.

 

I've never done any of that in either Vista or XP. I'm not sure from where you are getting the "mandatory" part of that, DotW.

 

The vast majority of users cannot manage to run one OS whitout messing it up. So two will be hell for them. I do not care what OS my pc runs, as long as it runs games. I am not going to debate other OS whit you, but I do know that the non MS cannot run all the games out there. The second reason is that people use MS on work.

 

I agree with that too!

 

Personally, I dont think Vista is all that bad. Seems stable enough. And seems to be fast enough too. I think a lot of the negative publicity is coming from people who bought a crap computer with Vista on it, which can be pinned on companies like Acer and not MS. I mean, we were still selling laptops with 512MB of ram and 1.73ghz Celeron processors earlier this year at work (trust me, I felt so dirty selling them)

The Evil Empire will still be getting my money for some time to come I think

 

If Vista tanks...M$ should just put XP back on the drawing board, give us DX10, and SP4 (SP3 is supposed to be out some time this month), and everyone will be happy again.

Right now, DX10 is really the only reason to switch to Vista...and there aren't many games that take full advantage of it.