The only reason Vista is the fastest selling OS is because MS is forcing it on people so much, just because you like a flashy OS with no real new features doesn't mean everyone does, the majority of my customers end up hating Vista and want XP installed. I've never heard a good thing about Vista from the hundreds of people I deal with in person, just a few people here and there on message boards that seem to only blindly support it for whatever reason they have. Open your eyes, 90% of people will agree it's the worst OS in history. I feel bad for the other tech's that have to deal with all the problems customers have because of it, and even worse for the customers that got stuck buying more expensive hardware because they thought they could run a better OS, but instead getting stuck with tons of problems and bad performance, and an already dying OS. It's not hard to see why average Joe wants XP, they simply want to browse the internet etc, why should they pay more for something that does the exact same thing, and comes with tons of problems and slowdown on top of it?
My Laptop is the only computer running Vista because my Desktop is still running XP. I do like it's fancy features, but JT001 is right because there's nothing in Vista at present that someone cannot already do in XP. Curiosity got the better of me that's why purchased, but the novelty wears off. I don't dislike it, but it's nothing special. Microsoft can dangle a carrot specially to Gamers because they know that they will want the DX10 features.
jackluo923
Distinguished
- Mar 12, 2007
- 453
- 0
- 18,780
If average joe just want to browse internet and do some word processing, why not just get a Ubuntu or Kubuntu linux? Free OS, free word processing, and it runs on most old computer. All you need is to go to your local junkyard and pick up an old computer.
Is this the ratio of computer users overall to computer users using Vista? I would hope more copies of Vista were/are being sold than Xp or win2000. Maybe I'm wrong but I think there are more people with computers now than when those OSes made their debut.
Major_Spittle
Distinguished
- Nov 17, 2006
- 459
- 0
- 18,780
That's not true because I seen on many forums across the net of people experiencing compatibility problems with Drivers for example. I'm sure this will improve, but their clearly is a disadvantage.
I do believe 64Bit will be the norm one day, but its not essential for now. It clearly will have benefits, but until I see them I will stick with my 32Bit editions of Windows.
Stuff forums, there are a lot of biased rumours floating around from people such as yourself who don't even have Vista 64 on their systems.
As Rninneman commented MS required manufacturers to produce both 64 and 32 bit versions of drivers in order to get certification. Result is there's hardly anything without drivers despite rumours to the contrary that are posted by Vista haters.
Its just like the one posted on here the other day about MS suffering because of poor sales. Just happened to coincide with a press release saying Vista has sold 40m copies and is now the fastest selling OS in history!!
Look at the posts above, myself, Zorlofe, Rninneman all have Vista 64 systems and can tell you the truth from our experiences not just anti MS rumours.
I wouldn't touch the 32 bit version!
I love my Vista 64, but don't try to run old software on it and you will have driver issues with some old hardware. My BF2 still studders from time to time which it didn't in XP MCE. Embrace the future, it is the only one you have.
I hope I can say this because I have Vista64.
Embrace the future? That's exactly the attitude we need to get rid of here, consumers shouldn't buy something just because it's newer.
To the person who said they'd like to try linux, go for it, I've been using it for a few years now and it's soo much better than Windows, and it's even free, I'd suggest Ubuntu for those just getting started with Linux.
To the person who said they'd like to try linux, go for it, I've been using it for a few years now and it's soo much better than Windows, and it's even free, I'd suggest Ubuntu for those just getting started with Linux.
mad_murdock
Distinguished
- Nov 3, 2006
- 140
- 0
- 18,680
.
There was a write up on this back when they posted the 20 millions copies sold. Someone picked a part the numbers and technically XP was selling better in 2006, then it was in 2002. The reason ? The number of PCs being sold now, is something like 2 times the numbers it was in 2001.
Here's the right up
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/stacking_vista_licenses_too_high.html
**a snippet**
"It's kind of meaningless to say they sold a lot more," he asserted. "The run rate for PCs in 2001 was 120 million." The run rate is 220 million now, he said.
By the measure of run rate, "One could argue [Microsoft] sold more XP in 2006 than 2002," DeGroot said. "It would look like XP is on this incredible sales curve as well."
Major_Spittle
Distinguished
- Nov 17, 2006
- 459
- 0
- 18,780
I spent $120 for Windows. I'll live. It is supported a littel better than Linux and has a couple more game titles :idea:
And yes, for most people who are buying a new OS today it makes more sense to get Vista64 if the system is new. In 2 years 32bit stuff will be looked at like single core processors are today.
So, don't buy it because it is new, buy it because it is better.
vic20
Distinguished
- Jul 11, 2006
- 443
- 0
- 18,790
.
There was a write up on this back when they posted the 20 millions copies sold. Someone picked a part the numbers and technically XP was selling better in 2006, then it was in 2002. The reason ? The number of PCs being sold now, is something like 2 times the numbers it was in 2001.
Here's the right up
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/stacking_vista_licenses_too_high.html
**a snippet**
"It's kind of meaningless to say they sold a lot more," he asserted. "The run rate for PCs in 2001 was 120 million." The run rate is 220 million now, he said.
By the measure of run rate, "One could argue [Microsoft] sold more XP in 2006 than 2002," DeGroot said. "It would look like XP is on this incredible sales curve as well."
Yeah there's way too many people using logical fallicies to win an arguement or prove a point in the computer industry.
More PCs are being sold now then ever. With Vista being on the average new PC from HP/Compaq and Dell now.....of course its selling great.
Just like all the people posting they don't have any troubles with x64/Vista 64, and the OP 😛
Just because YOU don't have problems doesn't mean the majority won't.
When Dell and HP plan to sell a PC, they are going to want the most compatiblity with what they think the user is going to install and plug in. And guess what, a lot of the stuff people plug in or install on their brand new PC is old. Old printers, scanners, digital cameras, web cams, etc etc
If Vista 32 has more drivers available for more hardware then 64, guess what they are going to ship with? :roll:
Anyone who believes the support for 64 is just as good as 32 because they haven't experienced any issues needs discover what an "inductive fallacy" is.
32 bit windows can address 4GB of RAM. The physical address size of most IA-32 chips is 2^36.
I think what you mean to say is that a single process in Windows cannot address more than 2.5-3GB. This is because most operating systems combine the kernel address space with the current process address space (this makes things MUCH faster). Obviously, the process cannot address the kernel part.
So in summary, 4GB is not wasted on a 32-bit windows install.
Old hardware is a thorny problem for some of us who go after high-end or durable products. I hate peripherals that fail prematurely and shun the headache of new drivers and compatibility issues. Some others I'm sure would dislike the idea of cycling cheaper products more often in the interest of being on the cutting edge.
Still others of us have a habit of carefully arranging driver versions for optimum stability/functionality. For example, in Server 2003 (NT 5.2 x86) I found the mouse driver (mouse.drv, 2kb) annoying because of default acceleration, so I replaced that with the older mouse.drv from 2000 (NT 5.0). Problem gone on restart. I doubt I'd have that luxury in the x64 version.
On the other hand, if all average Joe is plugging into his computer are an external 250gb drive and a logitech webcam, both versions of Vista should be more than capable.
Isn't it considered paradoxical to ask average Joe to operate Linux?
That's a limitation from the coding of Windows as well. Server 2003 x86 Enterprise Edition is 32-bit but handles 32GB of RAM, I think. And certainly our hard drives are more than 4 GB a partition.
Conversely, just because YOU have problems, doesn't mean the majority do.
Dell, HP, etc want to minimize the post-sale support. If say the 32 bit machines will result in 2% of owners calling for help within the first year, they would consider it really bad if that number doubled to 4% if they were to put the 64 bit version on new machines. That is still a very low number to support and a very low percentage of people to have problems, but twice the load would be trouble for their call centers. (I don't know if these numbers are accurate; I was just using them for the sake of example.)
The reality is, no one knows what the level of problems are for Vista x64. Many people have good experience and many people have bad experience. That should not deter someone from trying it though. Afterall, as I mentioned in a previous post, you get both licenses when you buy a copy of Vista. (I'm not sure about the OEM license though.) So why not try it. If someone is even aware that the 64 bit version exists, he/she could probably manage to install it and play around with it.
Make no mistake about it though, 64 bit computing is the way of the future. For some people it is already tremendously useful.
Ryan
32 bit windows can address 4GB of RAM. The physical address size of most IA-32 chips is 2^36.
I think what you mean to say is that a single process in Windows cannot address more than 2.5-3GB. This is because most operating systems combine the kernel address space with the current process address space (this makes things MUCH faster). Obviously, the process cannot address the kernel part.
So in summary, 4GB is not wasted on a 32-bit windows install.
You are correct that IA-32 can address 2^36. Starting with the Pentium Pro, Intel implemented Phyical Address Extension (PAE) to allow a larger address space. Generally only server OSes have utilized PAE hence someone mentioning Server 03 Enterprise supporting 32GB of RAM. (It actually supports 64GB. 2^36=64GB hence the PAE limit).
You somewhat incorrect about Windows addressing only 2.5-3GB. Windows can address 4GB. The reason you see less is because the 4GB of address space for Windows is all addresses for all hardware in the system including you video card, sound card, network adaptor, etc. The more hardware you have in the system and the more video RAM you have, the less of the 4GB that will be available to the system on a 32bit version of Windows.
4GB is definitely not wasted on a 32 bit install for someone who needs more than 2GB.
Ryan
vic20
Distinguished
- Jul 11, 2006
- 443
- 0
- 18,790
32 bit windows can address 4GB of RAM. The physical address size of most IA-32 chips is 2^36.
I think what you mean to say is that a single process in Windows cannot address more than 2.5-3GB. This is because most operating systems combine the kernel address space with the current process address space (this makes things MUCH faster). Obviously, the process cannot address the kernel part.
So in summary, 4GB is not wasted on a 32-bit windows install.
4GB is definitely not wasted on a 32 bit install for someone who needs more than 2GB.
Ryan
I agree, but you must be careful. Many motherboard BIOSes (including current ones) reserve RAM and have a maximum useable amount.
Also, Vista 32 does not use all 4GB of RAM.
Mondoman
Splendid
- Jun 22, 2006
- 5,678
- 1
- 25,810
More correctly, "there's hardly anything *recent* without drivers...". It's the older hardware w/o 64-bit Win drivers in millions of existing systems that's the problem.
Of course, that doesn't take into account that there are many more computers in existence now than 7 years ago, and many more sold each year than 7 years ago. Similarly, there are many more Nike shoes sold last year than 30 years ago. The key info IMHO is (a) what percent of computers that can support the Aero UI are running Vista, and what was the analogous percentage at the same point during the Win98/ME -> XP transition?
mad_murdock
Distinguished
- Nov 3, 2006
- 140
- 0
- 18,680
This is really splittign hairs, but how is 64bit more useful ? I understand there is a small percentage of people who need 8GB and greater for different style work. But using Joe user as the template, what advatage does he\she have going with Vista64 over Vista32 ?
Sure 64bit is the future, I heard that back in 2004, when AMD first released the Athlon64 and all the Pro AMDs guys were ragging on Intel for not havign a 64bit capable CPU all I heard in the gaem forums was withthe release of XP64, that we would all need 4GB of ram by 2006\2007.
My prediction is, Microsoft is currently planning on releasing a new version\update to Vista codename Vienna in 2009(ish). Vista64 is for those early adopter types who is doing all the bug and driver testing now, so that in 2009(ish) Vienna may only be released in a 64bit only fashion.
I said back in 2004 and I'm sticking with it today, 64bit computing and greater than 4GB ram won't be "needed"until 2010. At this point it's nice, but I would dare to say that 90% of most home users are living just fine with Vista32 and 2GB of ram.
On a side note, I have Vista64 installed, partly because I wanted to see what the hype was about. My experience is that Vista64 is no worse than Vist32, but doesn't do anything better. It's hard to sell something has a "it's better" when there is no evidence to prove it.
Another a side note, If you bought Command and Conquer 3 (which lists only Vista32 support) and you went to play, you would get this error under Vista64. http://images.filecloud.com/407563/CnC3_error.jpg
Granted, they had the problem fixed within a 7-8 days of the game release, but that's 7-8 days the Vista32 people played and you didn't
32 bit windows can address 4GB of RAM. The physical address size of most IA-32 chips is 2^36.
I think what you mean to say is that a single process in Windows cannot address more than 2.5-3GB. This is because most operating systems combine the kernel address space with the current process address space (this makes things MUCH faster). Obviously, the process cannot address the kernel part.
So in summary, 4GB is not wasted on a 32-bit windows install.
4GB is definitely not wasted on a 32 bit install for someone who needs more than 2GB.
Ryan
I agree, but you must be careful. Many motherboard BIOSes (including current ones) reserve RAM and have a maximum useable amount.
Also, Vista 32 does not use all 4GB of RAM.
In case I was not clear, my point was that even if the system allows you to use only 3-3.25GB, for someone who is able to utilize more than 2GB, there is a benefit to having 4GB of RAM in the system, but only a 32 bit address.
Ryan
More correctly, "there's hardly anything *recent* without drivers...". It's the older hardware w/o 64-bit Win drivers in millions of existing systems that's the problem.
Installing a 64 bit OS generally means having *recent* hardware to even be capable of running it. Yes, I understand the original Athlon64 came out a while ago, but I don't understand why people aren't being more realistic about this. The type of person looking to specifically put a 64 bit OS on his/her machine is most likely an enthusiast. More specifically, an enthusiast with newer hardware or at least enough knowledge to figure out what will and will not work. With every OS upgrade I have ever done, there has been hardware I owned that was never fully supported by the new version. This is not OSes fault. I don't really get upset when my 4-5 year old scanner doesn't work in a new OS. If it gets used enough, old hardware deserves the upgrade.
Of course, that doesn't take into account that there are many more computers in existence now than 7 years ago, and many more sold each year than 7 years ago. Similarly, there are many more Nike shoes sold last year than 30 years ago. The key info IMHO is (a) what percent of computers that can support the Aero UI are running Vista, and what was the analogous percentage at the same point during the Win98/ME -> XP transition?
I think most people saw right through Microsoft's claim of 40m copies. Of course the market is much bigger now. It would be interesting to see the number of OEM license sold vs retail.
Ryan
This is really splittign hairs, but how is 64bit more useful ? I understand there is a small percentage of people who need 8GB and greater for different style work. But using Joe user as the template, what advatage does he\she have going with Vista64 over Vista32 ?
Are you serious? Do you really need explanation as to why many people benefit from 64 bit OSes? Check out programs like 3D Studio Max, Maya, Solidworks, etc. I never claimed it was a big percentage of users though.
As far as Joe average is concerned, if Vista 64 was jammed down his throat now when he buys a new computer, he benefits because he only buys a computer every 5-7 years. In half that time, 4GB will be the requirement for many more apps and games. So rather than being told he has to upgrade his OS in 2 years (which good luck to Joe average to upgrade his OS), he would already be set for the future.
Sure AMD was a little ahead of their time, but then again K8 was designed first as a server CPU where more RAM is very useful. Despite what you read in the forums, just consider the average amount of RAM shipped with new computers (to cope with the ever growing software requirements), doubles every 2 years. So if the trend over the past 4 decades continues for the next 2-3 years (which I think it will), 4GB will not only be standard, but required for many apps. Joe user has a hard enough time getting his digital camera to work with his computer, maybe even upgrading the RAM. Almost no average users ever upgrade the OS on a computer; they just buy a new one. Most people only buy a computer every 5-7 years though.
Based on their track record, I'm not holding my breath for Vienna. Most people will not even have upgraded to Vista by then. (Remember the 5-7 year upgrade cycle?) I would agree that to some degree 64 bit users now are the guinea pigs to make sure 64 bit will be ready for the masses in the not too distant future. This could have been easily accelerated if Vista was only released as a 64 bit OS. Then all hardware vendors would be required to write 64 bit drivers if they wanted to support Vista. WHQL would ensure driver quality. This is not rocket science.
No doubt most users are just fine with a 32 bit OS, but how many would be happier if they knew the computer they purchased today was that much more future proof?
So you admit Vista x64 is no worse than Vista x86. So why not do the average Joe a favor by not forcing him to upgrade his OS in a couple years. (You can't use the M$ wants to sell another copy of Windows arguement, because a Vista license includes both 32 bit and 64 bit versions. So no additional sales would be involved.) Sure there is nothing inherently better about a 64 bit OS than a 32 bit OS, but then again same could be said regarding 32 bit vs 16 bit. The difference is what it allows you to do. A 64 bit OS allows you to run applications that can benefit from more RAM. Some applications can already run faster on a 64 bit OS even if they don't need 4GB of RAM. (Usually that is on Linux for right now though.)
That is a silly excuse against Vista x64. How many games have been released in the past where it had issues on an nVidia card because of driver and not on an ATI card or vice versa? The poor nVidia or ATI users had to wait a few weeks for a driver update to run a game. Have you ever looked at video driver release notes? Half the issues are usually game compatibilty related. No one seems to be complaining here that nVidia hasn't upgraded their XP drivers for the 7 series cards since November. I guess the XP drivers are perfect and every game runs perfect in XP on a 7 series card. Maybe its because 32 bit OSes aren't ready for the masses. (See my point?) There will always be driver issues.
I think I should clear one thing up here too. I don't love Vista and try to push it on everyone. I have used it plenty so far and can see the potential for the future. In fact, I haven't recommended it yet to one person. I do believe M$ is doing people a disservice by not forcing vendors to move to 64 bit software with Vista. They're already jamming it down everyones throat who buys a new computer anyway. But then again, silly me, when did M$ ever look out for their customers?
If someone wants to try Vista x64, why talk him/her out of it? If it doesn't cost anything to do it and as you say, it's no worse than Vista 32, why not?
Ryan
ryanthesav
Distinguished
- May 27, 2007
- 708
- 0
- 18,980
Major_Spittle
Distinguished
- Nov 17, 2006
- 459
- 0
- 18,780
My vista premium 64 and 32 have many features XP doesn't. It aslo makes doing things easier because many features have been updated.
Which version do you have? I would assume Home, or you don't do much networking, watching tv on your system, or tracking peoples internet usage.
2000/XP really didn't have much difference. XP and Vista do. 98 and 2000 do. I realize there are a lot of MS haters in this world, like me, but at least be honest.
vic20
Distinguished
- Jul 11, 2006
- 443
- 0
- 18,790
My vista premium 64 and 32 have many features XP doesn't. It aslo makes doing things easier because many features have been updated.
Which version do you have? I would assume Home, or you don't do much networking, watching tv on your system, or tracking peoples internet usage.
2000/XP really didn't have much difference. XP and Vista do. 98 and 2000 do. I realize there are a lot of MS haters in this world, like me, but at least be honest.
Not as much of a difference if you compare XP Home to Vista Basic or MCE to Premium. (Which would be more fair as pricing is concerned)
I had Win2000 running fine on my home comp, but decided to upgrade.
I decided to breathe some life into my ABIT Fatal1ty mobo and skipped past the XP professional SP2 phase, and go straight to Vista Ultimate x64.
Here's my experience:
Vista was a breeze to load 🙁although there was a scary moment where nothing seemed to be happening during setup.) and incredibly, the driver support base recognised almost evrything after interrogating the web.
Once loaded, I found Vista x64 a slick and polished performer. Apart from the aeroglass graphics, the system seemed stable, and intuitive.
Then I tried to load my mobo drivers.....doh. (vista won't allow this) I forgot - 64bit. So first I hunt the web and download new graphics x64 ATI drivers which work a treat. Then I go to Abit and download all that I can. But this hardware is considered older technology after only 3 or so years, so I fail to get the intel HD sound to work correctly. After trying some 5 different x64 drivers with no success, I give up. Well I can live without sound for now.
What about applications.? Being a gamer, I want to see if Vista handles a simple FPS. COD2 is a old standby, and it seems to run ok online for about 5 mins before vanishing and Vista telling me that COD2.exe FAILED! No reasons why, just failed. It does this regularly and soon becomes too annoying. The online experience is also strangely sped up when you are in the game...like being on steroids. Oh well, it is a 32 bit app after all, so perhaps newer games will be x64 compliant. No prob. I can adapt. This is not Vista's fault for being so advanced...probably mine for being a bit behind the times.
What about a simple thing like outlook 2002? I load this and download my email....great, a friendly face on my screen. But when I close the app, and then open it again, I am asked for a password. But I have already set this to be remembered by outlook. Yet everytime I open it again i have to supply a username and password. Apparently this is a bug and a fix will be along soon.
Are you starting to get the picture.?
I format another drive, and load WinXP X32. Its faster, responds quicker, and has no problems at all.
Don't get me wrong....Vista is cool and the way of the future. When I build up my next rig with higher spec'd hardware, and with Vista compliant components, I am more than happy to try Vista again.
Otherwise, stick with XP x32. The world is still catching up to Vista, and to X64 in general.
I decided to breathe some life into my ABIT Fatal1ty mobo and skipped past the XP professional SP2 phase, and go straight to Vista Ultimate x64.
Here's my experience:
Vista was a breeze to load 🙁although there was a scary moment where nothing seemed to be happening during setup.) and incredibly, the driver support base recognised almost evrything after interrogating the web.
Once loaded, I found Vista x64 a slick and polished performer. Apart from the aeroglass graphics, the system seemed stable, and intuitive.
Then I tried to load my mobo drivers.....doh. (vista won't allow this) I forgot - 64bit. So first I hunt the web and download new graphics x64 ATI drivers which work a treat. Then I go to Abit and download all that I can. But this hardware is considered older technology after only 3 or so years, so I fail to get the intel HD sound to work correctly. After trying some 5 different x64 drivers with no success, I give up. Well I can live without sound for now.
What about applications.? Being a gamer, I want to see if Vista handles a simple FPS. COD2 is a old standby, and it seems to run ok online for about 5 mins before vanishing and Vista telling me that COD2.exe FAILED! No reasons why, just failed. It does this regularly and soon becomes too annoying. The online experience is also strangely sped up when you are in the game...like being on steroids. Oh well, it is a 32 bit app after all, so perhaps newer games will be x64 compliant. No prob. I can adapt. This is not Vista's fault for being so advanced...probably mine for being a bit behind the times.
What about a simple thing like outlook 2002? I load this and download my email....great, a friendly face on my screen. But when I close the app, and then open it again, I am asked for a password. But I have already set this to be remembered by outlook. Yet everytime I open it again i have to supply a username and password. Apparently this is a bug and a fix will be along soon.
Are you starting to get the picture.?
I format another drive, and load WinXP X32. Its faster, responds quicker, and has no problems at all.
Don't get me wrong....Vista is cool and the way of the future. When I build up my next rig with higher spec'd hardware, and with Vista compliant components, I am more than happy to try Vista again.
Otherwise, stick with XP x32. The world is still catching up to Vista, and to X64 in general.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Question Upgraded to Ryzen 5 5500GT — Rear USB 3.0 Ports Have Power but No Data- Started by eccoows
- Replies: 1
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram