Why so many XP users are reluctant to 'upgrade' to Vista

[User12343]

Chilling stories, even from top Microsoft execs, tell the truth

 

(NEW YORK) One year after the birth of Windows Vista, why do so many Windows XP users still decline to 'upgrade'?

 

Microsoft says high prices have been the deterrent. Last month, the company trimmed prices on retail packages of Vista, trying to entice consumers to overcome their reluctance. In the United States, an XP user can now buy Vista Home Premium for US$129.95, instead of US$159.95.

 

An alternative theory, however, is that Vista's reputation precedes it. XP users have heard too many chilling stories from relatives and friends about Vista upgrades that have gone badly.

 

The graphics chip that couldn't handle Vista's whizzy special effects. The long delays as it loaded. The applications that ran at slower speeds. The printers, scanners and other hardware peripherals, which work dandily with XP, that lacked the necessary drivers to work well with Vista.

 

Can someone explain why switching XP for Vista is an 'upgrade'? Here's one story of a Vista upgrade early last year that did not go well. Jon upgrades two XP machines to Vista. Then he discovers that his printer, regular scanner and film scanner lack Vista drivers.

 

He has to stick with XP on one machine just so he can continue to use the peripherals.

 

Did Jon simply have bad luck? Apparently not. When another person, Steven, hears about Jon's woes, he says drivers are missing in every category - 'this is the same across the whole ecosystem'.

 

Then there's Mike, who buys a laptop that has a reassuring 'Windows Vista Capable' logo affixed. He thinks that he will be able to run Vista in all of its glory, as well as favourite Microsoft programs like Movie Maker. His report: 'I personally got burned.'

 

His new laptop - logo or no logo - lacks the necessary graphics chip and can run neither his favourite video-editing software nor anything but a hobbled version of Vista. 'I now have a US$2,100 e-mail machine,' he says.

 

It turns out that Mike is clearly not a naif. He's Mike Nash, a Microsoft vice-president who oversees Windows product management.

 

And Jon, who is dismayed to learn that the drivers he needs don't exist? That's Jon Shirley, a Microsoft board member and former president and chief operating officer.

 

And Steven, who reports that missing drivers are anything but exceptional, is in a good position to know: he's Steven Sinofsky, the company's senior vice-president responsible for Windows.

 

Their remarks come from a stream of internal communications at Microsoft in February 2007, after Vista had been released as a supposedly finished product and customers were paying full retail price.

 

One usually does not have the opportunity to overhear Microsoft's most senior executives vent their personal frustrations with Windows. But a lawsuit filed against Microsoft in March 2007 has pried loose a packet of internal company documents.

 

The plaintiffs, Dianne Kelley and Kenneth Hansen, bought PCs in late 2006, before Vista's release, and contend that Microsoft's 'Windows Vista Capable' stickers were misleading when affixed to machines that turned out to be incapable of running the versions of Vista that offered the features Microsoft was marketing as distinctive Vista benefits.

 

Last month, Judge Marsha Pechman granted class-action status to the suit, which is scheduled to go to trial in October. (Microsoft last week appealed against the certification decision.)

 

Anyone who bought a PC that Microsoft labelled 'Windows Vist+a Capable' without also declaring 'Premium Capable' is now a party in the suit.

 

The judge also unsealed a cache of 200 e-mail messages and internal reports, covering Microsoft's discussions on how best to market Vista, beginning in 2005 and extending beyond its introduction in January 2007.

 

The documents incidentally include those accounts of frustrated Vista users in Microsoft's executive suites. -- NYT

[Chisiang]

PWNED!

[Kb27]

The question is why "upgrade", when XP is working well?

 

MS must be kicking themselves for making a good XP.

You never write a good software, if you want to sell upgrades.

[Tsjade]

the only upgrade worth doing is leopard or tiger. these big cats eat windoze for breakfast...

[Elantrahatch]

Absolutely agree with why the need to upgrade to Vista when XP is doing fine. I have a laptop running on Vista Home Basic and it takes ages for the laptop to boot up, even after stopping most of the unnecessary startup programs.

 

Personally, I am still using my Starhub promo's free V3136 running on XP.. and very happy with it.

[Alpha78]

XP worked well in the later stages. Initially XP was crap too, just look at the speed of releasing SP1 and SP2.

 

Windows 2000 seemed to be the only one that had much less problems when it was launched.

[User12343]

a hell lot of lappie makers now "force" consumers to buy vista-loaded OS which is , if one requests the dealer to downgrade to XP, still have to pay $$$ for the XP license, wtf......

[Kb27]

When I was using Windows 2000, I didn't want to upgrade to XP too until SP1 as I don't see the need.

Actually my XP still runs with the classic Windows 2000 GUI for performance.

I hate flashy bells and whistles. It does nothing but bog down the system.

XP SP2 also screwed up some of my program with its DEP causing BSOD.

 

However, from NT4 to Windows 2000, it was a huge leap.

 

Ironically, the server version was called Windows 2003 R2 server until recently, it's Windows 2008.

It was never called XP or Vista server. Perhaps it's developed from Windows 2000 platform for stability.

[Naresh]

The thing about internet is that you generally hear a lot of people complaining about problems/issues they have. Generally, no one will come out and say he/she is happy with Vista.

 

Having said that, I am not defending Vista. It doesn't make sense to upgrade your XP to Vista... it is not worth it. I do not see any productivity or performance improvement over XP. If however you are planning to buy a new PC, it does make sense to get PC with Vista (the 32-bit version).

 

Vista itself is very stable. The major issue with Vista is the availability of device driver for your older devices... a real deal breaker for many. If your device is less that 2 years old, then it most likely is already Vista compliant.

 

Microsoft has Vista upgrade adviser...

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...adeadvisor.mspx

You can download this on your XP PC, connect all the devices (camera, printers, scanners, external hard disks, hand phone, PDA, speakers, webcams) to PC, turn them on and run the application to evaluate if the devices will continue to work with Vista. If the report comes up with a 'NO' for the device, look for upgraded Vista drivers for these devices before you move over to Vista. You should (most likely) be able to find Vista drivers from device manufacturers website. Some of the software... specially PC games may not work with Vista, so search for Vista compatibility patch for these games. The upgrade adviser may not be able to advise you on these.

 

Edited March 10, 2008 by Naresh

[Normal_aspirated]

me happy with XP fer the time being................Vista gotta wait longer a bit more.

[Silver_z]

My new notebook comes with Vista... I wanna downgrade... Just that I am too lazy to re-install everything!

[Typhoonz]

Vista is still very new so when one makes the decision to upgrade, he / she has to bear with the limited hardware / software that are compatible to Vista... As of now, XP is still the stable OS that compatible with almost everything...

[Darth_mel]

Should rename it to Piss-sta because it pisses people off.

[Raining]

Compatiblity is ok for me. Its the loading speed #@$$&&*(@!

[Typhoonz]

Maybe Microsoft was to hasty to launch this new OS... It's a nice change from the normal XP looks but compatibility is one big issue... Most who buy PCs or lap tops have to pay extra to downgrade to XP...

[Typhoonz]

Vista sure eats up lot of your ram space... Minimum is 1GB or ram right? Think one would need at least 2GB in order for it to run normally... If you play GFX intensive games, then your ram size must at least be 4GB with a good GFX card...

[Thestig]

Well, one of the reasons why I have Vista installed is due to the higher level of stability as well as the DirectX10. But I do have my XP on dual boot as well to run DX9 games at higher frame rates, all in all. I have not encountered driver problems in Vista at all, maybe if you were using legacy equipment would you have a driver problem.

[Boyboy]

When I was using Windows 2000, I didn't want to upgrade to XP too until SP1 as I don't see the need.

Actually my XP still runs with the classic Windows 2000 GUI for performance.

.

 

pardon if i ask the obvious, so my system will work better with the classic interface??