Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

PCWorld Says Firefox is Strong, Vista is Weak

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the not-inaccurate dept.

Windows 395

twitter writes "PC World has released their year in review statistics and 2007 was not kind to Microsoft. IE 6 users are equally likely to move to Firefox as they are to IE7 and no one wants Vista. 'How much of an accomplishment is it for a new version of Windows to get to 14 percent usage in 11 months? The logical benchmark is to compare it to the first eleven months of Windows XP, back in 2001 and 2002. In that period, that operating system went from nothing to 36 percent usage on PCWorld.com--more than 250 percent of the usage that Vista has mustered so far.'"

cancel ×

395 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

f1rsty pist (1)

pyro_dude (15885) | more than 6 years ago | (#21859858)

oh yeah.

Re:f1rsty pist (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21860758)

I penis all over your fp. Bitch.

Help Out (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21859874)

Here at Drunkard Town [myminicity.com] we also think Vista is weak and Safari is strong. We sure do love FOSS, and the FOSS community loves us back by visiting Drunkard Town [myminicity.com] as often as possible, and spending many valuable vacation dollars on our many amenities.

For instance: Alcohol of myriad variety; weed; mushrooms; naked girls' computer programming. Whatever you want.

If you love FOSS and Linux and Firefox and Apple, or apples, come visit Drunkard Town [myminicity.com] .

benchmark? (3, Funny)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 6 years ago | (#21859882)

? The logical benchmark is to compare it to the first eleven months of Windows XP, back in 2001 and 2002.
I'd say it's probably better to compare to Windows ME than XP...

Apples & Oranges (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21859914)

Like the contactlog blog has mentioned times [contactlog.net] you just can't compare apples and oranges.

Re:benchmark? (3, Informative)

thatskinnyguy (1129515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860018)

At least every time I've installed Vista the disk preparation utilities worked like a charm. ME on the other hand, I had to mess around with a Win 98 boot disk.
Also, the only problems I can find from a user perspective in Vista is that UAC is annoying as hell. With ME, I would have systemic problems right off the bat. That OS was just plain junk right off the bat. Nothing anyone could do could make it work right. The annoyances with Vista can at least be fixed with unchecking a few boxes.

Re:benchmark? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21860442)

You don't find that Vista is a sluggish piece of crap? With 2GB of RAM, a damn fast Core 2 Duo, and a 256MB G70 video card, I find the interface chugs along after installing a few perfectly normal programs. XP is a dream in comparison.

Re:benchmark? (2, Interesting)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860488)

I used Windows ME for several years without significant problems and only switch because some software I needed wouldn't work on Windows ME.

Re:benchmark? (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860570)

Yup, WinME was significantly better than Win98. I think that a lot of WinME's problems were due to bad hardware. For example, back then USB chips were notoriously bad and lots of people unfairly/ignorantly blamed Windows for that while the chips themselves were buggy.

Re:benchmark? (3, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860686)

Vista has a ridiculously large footprint. I've seen systems with 2GB of RAM and fairly decent processor (Athlon 64 x2 4200) run Vista and it's sllllooowwww. Much slower than XP on the system.

OTOH, give Mac OS X Leopard or Ubuntu Gutsy that much RAM and CPU and watch it sing.

Sorry for anyone who feels like Vista is great, but facts are facts. Vista is slow and bloated.

Re:benchmark? (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860046)

It'd be nice to have stats on how many people chose to upgrade to Vista, rather than having it forced upon them with their new PC. I was looking for a laptop a month ago, and most had Vista pre-installed where an upgrade to XP wasn't an option. I'm using Vista x64 right now because it was pre-installed, and so far, it's usable. The only thing stopping me from upgrading to XP is my laziness.

Re:benchmark? (2, Insightful)

HiThere (15173) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860512)

More significant would be the percentage that decide to switch away from Vista within more than a week, but less than a month.

(People who got it on a machine and immediately switched to, say, Linux, shouldn't be counted. I'm after the ones that gave it a reasonable trial.)

Vista a Flop? (1, Funny)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 6 years ago | (#21859886)

Well, I guess posting something brutally obvious is better than posting another dupe.

*shrug*

Re:Vista a Flop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21860006)

Please forgive the 'tards, they can't help but kick Micro$oft while they're down. I have Vista installed (and activated - it's legal) and you know what it actually works really good. But then again I know what I'm doing when it comes to configuring an OS and I'm not trying to use a decades old printer or the like with it. And the same old crap was going around when XP first came out - next year after Vista ships with a million(s) more PC's and MS gets most of the bugs ironed out it'll be OK for everyone, the year after people won't even remember XP and Vista will just be "it". Reaching that level of maturity will also mean that software makers will be targeting their code to Vista so compatibility will increase even more. And in 2011 everyone will say Windows 7 sucks and Vista was the second coming.

Re:Vista a Flop? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21860440)

"... MS gets most of the bugs ironed out it'll be OK for every Windows user..."

I fixed that for you. Windows users are not everyone.

Re:Vista a Flop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21860444)

Yep you're right, in a few years I won't remember XP anymore, as I'm just switching to mac....

Re:Vista a Flop? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21860592)

since you are i will too. Thanks. I am now a mac user.

Re:Vista a Flop? (1)

jcaldwel (935913) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860460)

Please forgive the 'tards, they can't help but kick Micro$oft while they're down. I have Vista installed (and activated - it's legal) and you know what it actually works really good.

You should at least check your grammar if you want to call people who agree with general consensus a "'tard."

Re:Vista a Flop? (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860604)

So, in other words, Vista is in beta.

And wait... (0)

whitespiral (941984) | more than 6 years ago | (#21859892)

"more than 250 percent of the usage that Vista has mustered so far." It's really worse if you consider the more millions of computers installed now, compared to those installed back then.

Re:And wait... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21859960)

I think this is the post which has finally convinced me to abandon Slashdot.

Re:And wait... (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860170)

What? I thought it was funny!

His sig is worth a laugh too.

Re:And wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21860314)

I had one mod point left, figured it wasn't worth it, and put in the snarky anonymous comment instead. I came back 20 mins later (for the vanity update) and he was 2+ insightful.... Had to blow my last point. And the sig. I suppose he means well, but having read it 3 or 4 times, I feel like I need a good scrub.

Re:And wait... (1)

hostyle (773991) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860172)

/me breaks out the Anonymous Champagne

Good luck on digg, buddy!

As for the Mac stat... (3, Insightful)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#21859928)

Wouldn't the number of people using Macs be lower than average, since they were measuring visitors to a PC-centric website?

Re:As for the Mac stat... (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860008)

apparently not the number of visits nearly tripled from 2006. TFA says

t was as low as one percent at some points, and was around four percent when 2007 began. Now it's seven percent. That's still teensy compared to the 90 percent-plus who use various versions of Windows, but it's almost certainly the highest in the history of this site.

Naming? (4, Funny)

niceone (992278) | more than 6 years ago | (#21859930)

Of course a flaming fox is going to be stronger than a view. MS should have thought up a better name than Vista. Something that could beat foxes and fire - how about: Ice weasel?

Re:Naming? (1)

Ai Olor-Wile (997427) | more than 6 years ago | (#21859984)

What, like this [geticeweasel.org] Iceweasel? I say good chum, you may have been beaten to the finishing line.

Re:Naming? (5, Funny)

NotAgent86 (888079) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860010)

I always thought it was an acronym - Virus Infections, Spyware, Trojans and Adware

Re:Naming? (1, Funny)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860614)

I always thought it was an acronym - Virus Infections, Spyware, Trojans and Adware

Yeah, that'd be right. Typical MS marketing. Mention as many "new features" as you can to distract from the new DRM.

Cancel or Allow?

Re:Naming? (1)

lucabrasi999 (585141) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860092)

Of course a flaming fox is going to be stronger than a view. MS should have thought up a better name than Vista. Something that could beat foxes and fire - how about: Ice weasel?

Meh. A name isn't everything. Nintendo seems to be doing well with "Wii". And that is arguably the worst-sounding name since Price Waterhouse Coopers Consulting wanted to change it's name to "Monday".

Re:Naming? (1)

AB3A (192265) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860114)

How about Water-Snake? It is venomous and it bites.

Re:Naming? (1)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860344)

Halon Hound?

recession (5, Funny)

BobZee1 (1065450) | more than 6 years ago | (#21859938)

Could the United States being in a state of recession have anything to do with Vista's slow growth? Just kidding, I know Vista is TERRIBLE. My karma is bad and I wish it wasn't. I don't want to have bad karma. I am a good person.

wot a lot of crap (1, Flamebait)

Robowally (649265) | more than 6 years ago | (#21859944)

In that period, that operating system went from nothing to 36 percent usage on PCWorld.com--more than 250 percent of the usage that Vista has mustered so far.'" All this shows it that PCWorld is happy enough with XP not to change. Or they are to lazy, or broke, or stupid. Why do these guys have so many problems? I have had Vista on my Thinkpad T43 for about a year now, and it has been excellent with the exception of the slow power ON/OFF issue. Get a grip guys. Your irrational hatred of MS is sooooo obvious.

Re:wot a lot of crap (1)

BobZee1 (1065450) | more than 6 years ago | (#21859996)

I have had the misfortune of being required to deal with 2 different computers recently - both were brand-new with a factory install of Vista (a laptop and a desktop). Blue Screen of Death was the rule and not the exception. My irrational hatred of MicroSoft is deeply rooted in personal experience.

Re:wot a lot of crap (0, Redundant)

Alexx K (1167919) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860250)

Well, for one thing, I don't like Vista's DRM [auckland.ac.nz] .

Maybe that document is a bit exaggerated and it's not quite as pervasive as that, but I still don't want to support the MPAA, and especially not Microsoft after the whole Novell/Linux situation.

Re:wot a lot of crap (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860430)

My simple issue with it, the scrolling "all programs" menu. I CAN NOT stand it! There are other issues, but that pisses me off the most.

Of course, someone will say that you can switch it classic style, well, I don't want it to look like windows 95 w/o the quick access to my documents, my computer, network, printers, etc.

Why couldn't they have an option to have a XP like menu. I don't dislike vista because it causes problems (I have it running on one PC and the GF has it on her laptop), I dislike vista because I think the new UI sucks.

vista has classic view (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21860680)

Vista (just like XP) has "classic" view, that gives you a start menu like Windows 2000's. I think the setting is in start menu settings or something like that.

Re:vista has classic view (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860694)

I stated i don't want the classic setting, i want a menu like xp.

classic leaves out all the extra things a xp/vista start menu gives you.

Re:wot a lot of crap (1)

Robowally (649265) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860710)

the Vista menu system is WAY faster to use than any previous version. Did u discover that you can just type the name of the program and press enter to run it?

Re:wot a lot of crap (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860746)

Look for something called VistaGlazz?

After that do a google search for themes and you can find a theme that can make the start menu look like XP. Its not elegant but the color schemes and start menu drive me crazy too. Especially with all teh garbage at the front of the menu thats bundled with your computer and all the real folders where you do work on the bottom.

Forecast calls for a 75% chance of hilarity (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21859962)

People can come up with statistics to prove anything, fourty percent of all people know that.

Re:Forecast calls for a 75% chance of hilarity (3, Funny)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860028)

63.27% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Re:Forecast calls for a 75% chance of hilarity (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860366)

That's not true. 79,23% of all statistics are made up on the stop. 88% of the people know that.

Re:Forecast calls for a 75% chance of hilarity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21860668)

Sure, and 11.2% of constipated people just don't give a crap.

uhm.. (1)

pkadd (1203286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21859964)

I doubt i'm the only one who didn't need PCworld to say that before i realized it

Poor comparison (5, Insightful)

RealGrouchy (943109) | more than 6 years ago | (#21859978)

Assuming the summary is correct...

They're comparing usage based on visits to their website. Not only that, but they're comparing uptake of Vista in 2007 to XP in 2001. As a percentage.

I can't help but feel that a lot has changed over that time to make that method of comparison completely irrelevant, both in terms of MS's operations (like how Vista follows a fairly strong OS that has had years to take root, compared with XP, which followed Windows Me, which sucked in every possible way) and in terms of the overall PC market (like how Macs are much more competitive, and how Linux has matured, but mostly how so many hardware and software has been developed for Windows XP).

- RG>

Re:Poor comparison (3, Informative)

jawtheshark (198669) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860132)

I question your knowledge.... You say XP followed ME. That isn't remotely true. There was a consumer line which went 95, 98, ME. All of those were worthless. The professional line on the other hand went NT 3.51, NT 4.0, Windows 2000, Windows XP. None of those were worthless. They all were great within the time the lived. XP was NEVER a decendant of ME. Learn your OS history, please.

Re:Poor comparison (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21860212)

Actually, in the home computer market things went Windows ME [harder, baby] -> Win XP Home. Code-wise, things went as you say. Marketing-wise, XP was when home users (aside:software isn't consumed by use, always bugs me when people talk about "consumers" in such a context) were finally moved over to a variant of the professional line. It was... not hard to market Windows XP as an improvement to Windows ME. Vista as a substantial improvement to XP is a harder sell. From a home-user perspective Vista is actively crippled compared to XP in some areas.

Re:Poor comparison (4, Informative)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860292)

They all were great within the time the lived. XP was NEVER a decendant of ME. Learn your OS history, please.

Although you are 'technically' correct that Windows 2000 was released between WinME and XP, what is being missed in this argument is that WindowsXP was the FIRST version of the NT based OS that was focused on and designed to specifically replace the consumer level DOS/Win9x OSes.

You are correct that XP is not descended from Win9x or WinME in any way, it is an NT based OS with NO code used from the Win9x era of OSes. (It is was as much of a jump from Win9X/WinME as System 9 was to OS X).

In regard to the article, this is also why the uptake of WinXP was faster than even Windows 2000, as Windows 2000 was the successor to NT4 and was not pushed to home or mainstream consumer users. XP being the first NT version that was designed for and pushed into the mainstream consumer markets had quite an advantage even though Win2K users ignorantly thumbed their noses at it. In contrast to the generation of consumer OSes it was replacing, it was a massive difference in terms of performance and stability. XP not only ran faster than Win98 (the fastest of the DOS/Win9x generation), but it also was significantly more stable and secure than the previous OSes that had no knowledge of any type of security.

So for consumers and home users, XP was good jump, and even just upgrading Win98 or WinME to XP would not only increase the lifetime of the computer, but would fix technical problems in the installation wihtout having to wipe settings, and gave the users a virtually crash free experience.

Re:Poor comparison (2, Interesting)

gatzke (2977) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860326)


"They were all great within the time the [sic] lived."

Did you ever use NT 3.51? 4.0? 2000? They were terrible. XP is the first MS OS that has actually stayed stable for me for more than a few days. I still get bluescreens, but hey, it is a MS product. The "professional" line was worthless in a variety of ways.

For a lot of people, they did go from ME to XP because they had no consumer option. What was the consumer OS from MS after ME? XP Home! Another POS, but far better than ME. So YOU learn your OS history please.

XP was not a descendant of ME, but it was the only upgrade path for millions.

Re:Poor comparison (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860554)

I used NT4 and 2000 from NT5 Beta 2 on my desktop. The only blue screens I ever got were caused by nVidia and ATi drivers (uncertified). NT4 was a nice desktop OS in 1996, although IE 4/5 slowed it down a lot later. The lack of plug and play and DirectX support were the biggest problems and 2K fixed them. The only things XP added were remote desktop and a load of UI regressions.

I didn't use NT 3.51, although I did have to do some work for a company using it on their server (in 2000, would you believe) and it seemed like Window 3.1 with a more solid OS.

Re:Poor comparison (1)

FrankSchwab (675585) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860612)

As a daily user of Win2000 Professional on my home machine, from choice, I take offense at your ignorant assertion.

Yes, I installed and ran NT 3.51, as well as 3.1 and 4.0. I run WinXP at work, where I'm pushing people to convert to Vista (for business reasons, not for technical ones). I have a Win XP/X64 box here under my feet, and a Windows Server 2003 box a pencils throw away. I still own the Windows 98 Upgrade disk that I used to convert from Windows 95 to Windows 98, along with every DOS disk I've installed from 2.11 through, I believe, 5.0. In the day, I installed OS/2 from floppy - 46 of them, if I remember correctly. No, amazingly enough, I never even booted ME.

And, frankly, I find no stability problems with Windows 2000. Just a simple, straightforward desktop that runs everything I need it to run. The only reason I might upgrade is because Microsoft never saw fit to let me pull out a USB Flash drive without telling me what a bad, bad boy I am for not shutting it down first.

So, if you want to badmouth something, limit yourself to ME.

Re:Poor comparison (3, Informative)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860638)

I never used nt 3.51 or 4.0 regularly, but I did w2k and xp.

I NEVER get blue screens, ever, end of story. If you get blue screens with XP, something is wrong and it's not the OS.

2000 is absolutely rock-solid stable, as is w2k.

Re:Poor comparison (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860662)

*as is XP*

Re:Poor comparison (5, Insightful)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860760)

I used NT 3.51 and it was rock solid in my experience. So was NT 4, at least until SP2 came around. Windows 2000 was also reasonably stable and has proved to have great longevity... my kids still use it because the machine it runs on blue screens when trying to install XP. XP was better, especially by the time SP2 came around. The NT side of Windows never suffered from huge stability issues, and even when it did 90% of the time it was obviously and directly related to hardware drivers. No, the NT line was never perfect and there were features and bugs that would drive any user insane, but overall they were decent products that were worth the upgrades.

Until Vista came around, each new version offered significant improvements, required significantly more resources, added some quirky problems but was overall an improvement. The problem is that with Windows 2000, MS pretty much solved all their major problems (besides security, but that could be mitigated by a little bit of common sense, despite the horrible track record of security issues). By XP SP2, even security issues were starting to be not so severe. The biggest changes between 2000 and XP were minor UI tweaks (and the ugliest theme ever put on a GUI since Tandy DeskMate, but that could be turned off, and was turned off, by anyone who realized it could be), and support for new hardware, especially wireless, which didn't really become "nice" until SP2 came along. All Vista really needed to do was support the newest hardware, throw a little eye candy in (because you always need a little eye candy in a new release) and fix some of the many problems that will always plague any OS and it would have sold like hotcakes. Instead we got a Frankenstein monster of an OS that looks and feels like it was designed and written by Cold-War Era East German government employees, with more bloat than the U.S. Tax Code and fewer useful new features than the, well, the U.S. Tax Code.

IMO, Microsoft has been growing beyond their capacity to manage themselves since the early 90's and they have finally reached the point where they are so large they literally cannot do anything right. Just like the U.S. government, MS is so huge, bloated, mismanaged and downright corrupt, the only way it can possibly be improved is for 95% of it to simply go away.

Re:Poor comparison (1)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860698)

question your knowledge.... You say XP followed ME. That isn't remotely true.

No, what the original poster was saying is that Vista is to XP what ME is to 98. There are certainly some advantages, being able to use USB for example but nothing like the Windows 95 upgrade or the XP launch.

If you have the hardware that will cope with it, Vista is a really nice O/S to run. But there isn't the same incentive to upgrade an existing machine as there was with XP.

Re:Poor comparison (1)

piquadratCH (749309) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860282)

Assuming the summary is correct...

This is ./, the summary is almost never correct.

If you bothered to read the article, you'd seen that the author has exactly your arguments why the adoption of Vista could be this slow.

BTW, I don't see why these arguments should speak in favor of Microsoft. Vista does not deliver what the mutli-billion, five years long development cycle promised. XP is enough for most people and they probably don't see why they should pay hundreds of dollars for an eye-candy-only upgrade (of course there were huge changes behind the curtains, e.g. all the DRM "improvements", but the end user does not care for such things).

I've just upgraded one machine at home ... (3, Informative)

Tim Ward (514198) | more than 6 years ago | (#21859982)

... from Win2k to XP, a couple of weeks ago, because the child wanted to run something that didn't work on Win2k. (We have no Win9x or NT boxes left at home now, they've all been upgraded to at least Win2k.)

In the end, that'll be why people upgrade to Vista - difficulty in obtaining applications that still work on XP.

Re:I've just upgraded one machine at home ... (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860048)

in the end, that'll be why people upgrade to Vista
Nah, Windows 7 will have been released by then. Vista will be skipped over.

Re:I've just upgraded one machine at home ... (5, Interesting)

dprovine (140134) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860166)

[T]hat'll be why people upgrade to Vista - difficulty in obtaining applications that still work on XP.

That may not happen very quickly: at least one developer I know is under orders to write only things that work under XP, and test them with Vista for compatibility. Anything that's Vista-only is explicitly forbidden, because Vista uptake has been so slow.

Economically speaking, if Vista can run XP programs, your market for writing something that runs on both is vastly larger than your market for writing something that only runs on Vista. If you sold software for money, would you write anything Vista-only?

Re:I've just upgraded one machine at home ... (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860582)

If that were the only argument, then it would be a simple choice. The question is whether writing Vista-only software is simpler than writing Vista-and-XP software. Does Vista include any APIs that dramatically simplify development? If so, then at some point it is cheaper to write code that takes n% less long but only runs on m% of your target market's machines.

Another issue is security (Or how to sell Ubuntu) (1)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860214)

I could do everything I need to do on a Win2K computer, and in fact, I still use it at work. I think there are tons of people like us. The other problem that gets people to upgrade is security, though. The world is a lot different than it was just 10 years ago. The problem is, those systems were very insecure to begin with, and the patches have either stopped coming or are very close to stopping. I occasionally still get people trying to use Windows 98 systems on the Net. That's fine, if you want to get owned in like five minutes (unless you have a good firewall, which most people don't). That's one reason MS quit issuing patches for stuff that old, because it was so fundamentally flawed to begin with, they couldn't even patch it without a complete rewrite.

I showed Ubuntu to a non-computer literate friend the other day. He wants me to install it for him, which scare me a little bit, but I will probably do it. How did I sell it to him? I showed him Firefox and then told him there was no spyware, no viruses, no virus scanners, no spyware scanners...and he was sold instantly, because he is sick to death of that on Windows.

Transporter_ii

Re:I've just upgraded one machine at home ... (1)

Hymer (856453) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860302)

"In the end, that'll be why people upgrade to Vista - difficulty in obtaining applications that still work on XP."
That will probably never happen... we are seeing a replay of the ME tale. We will be getting "Siesta" or "Seven" (of Nine ? ...are MS really going Borg now ?) or something else before vendors drop XP support, mostly because the real paying customers (the corporations) are not changing to Vista. We will probably see an Adobe Photoshop for Linux before we see a Vista-only version of Photoshop and we can assume something like that for AutoCad too.

/. effect (5, Interesting)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21859994)

The chart occasionally shows Firefox having more hits than IE. Maybe those months had more /. articles pointing to PC World's website?

oh look. twitter spin (3, Insightful)

Ferzerp (83619) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860012)

The same BLOG linked to also states that ie7 is in use more than firefox. However, the tagline for the slashdot story says "firefox is strong". In the time it has come out, more people have adopted that single version of internet explorer than are using all versions of firefox combined.

Only on slashdot folks.

Re:oh look. twitter spin (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21860474)

'Adopted' might be the wrong word.

It has more to do with MS forcing IE7 in the windows XP priority updates. Prior to that, the IE7 uptake was very small outside of new systems. (This is anecdotal, I deal with 10-20 different personal systems a day, so I get a decent picture of all of it). IE7 suffered from the same problem Firefox does, most people don't know that there are alternatives to whatever they have right now, be it IE6, IE7, or Safari for mac users, heck, how many Linux users even know they can get opera, or about seamonkey?.

twitter strikes again (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21860014)

From the original [slashdot.org] journal entry:

Vistit the article to see the pretty graphs and to spike PC World's statistics more toward reality. It's clear that computer enthusiasts are not going for M$'s current offerings, show them what people really like.

twitter also has another journal entry there [slashdot.org] , which is hilarious if not for the fact that he spends so much time arguing that Dvorak is an idiot when he says something about Linux twitter doesn't like.

For someone who has already ruined two Slashdot [slashdot.org] accounts [slashdot.org] with his misguided "evangelism" and is down to trolling AC, he sure has a lot of fun trolling [slashdot.org] the site.

twitter, please stop "helping" us. Free software needs people who can make intelligent arguments about why it is superior to closed-source gunk, not trolls who spend all their waking hours making up shit about Microsoft with liberal doses of infantile creative spelling.

Re:twitter strikes again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21860086)

two Slashdot accounts

I think you meant to link to twitter [slashdot.org] and Erris [slashdot.org] , the two sockpuppets he uses to game Slashdot. Both now with 100% negative karma.

Re:twitter strikes again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21860328)

he sure has a lot of fun trolling the site.

His response [slashdot.org] to that is priceless.

fun with stats (1)

norbac (1113477) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860022)

How does the install base in 2001 compare to the marketplace in 2007? This is the key to interpreting these statistics fairly. I'm willing to bet the % of new PCs sold compared to existing install base was much larger back then. Let's be honest, a very small % of people actually upgrade their Windows OS, period. Most Windows sales are new PCs.

That said, how's the Vista market share compared to other non-MS operating systems?

So what's your point? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21860056)

So a newer version of Microsoft Windows isn't displacing it's predecessor as quickly. What's in it for us, really? We point at Vista's growth relative to XP, and let out a weak little Nelson laugh. Microsoft points at the total market share of Windows (all versions), Linux (all distros and versions), and Mac OS X (all versions), and looks at us with the same smug grin the IT world has seen since 1990 or so.

I'm sure focusing on one slice of the market gives certain zealots and Slashdot editors their jollies, but it's really taking our eyes off the real prize.

Another way to look at Vista's adoption rate (5, Insightful)

LaughingCoder (914424) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860078)

According to this web site (http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,62034821,00.htm [zdnetasia.com] ), Vista, in less than one year, has many times the desktop penetration as does Linux (all flavors still constitute less than 1%) after 15 years. The article also mentions that many (most?) businesses are waiting for SP1 before even considering adoption. Given that SP1 is due in a month or so, I strongly suspect there will be a dramatic change in Vista's numbers in its second year of existence.

Also along these lines, I know quite a few people who are getting Vista on their new home machines, and have been, for the most part, favorably impressed. This, over time, will also translate into increased adoption in the business world. Like it or not, Vista will become the pervasive desktop in the next 2 years.

Re:Another way to look at Vista's adoption rate (0)

headkase (533448) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860306)

I have Vista and it's really nice. I have all new hardware so it just works(tm), and when people talk about UAC always being in their face: well, the only time I see it is when I go into an OS configuration screen or I'm installing software ie, not very much so I don't get that complaint (although they could be running a lot of applications in XP compatibility mode - maybe). It's faster subjectively than XP on the same box (WinAmp loads a *lot* faster) maybe thats just because no matter what I tried (drivers, voodoo, etc) XP just wouldn't recognize my SATA HD (and I'm not an idiot - I know how to configure a computer) as anything but IDE where Vista sees it as SATA out of the box. And I'm an early adopter - XP has 6 years of patches to make it uber-stable. Vista's about to get SP1 and the fact of life is that it's only going to get better as it matures and as everyone just "gets it" with their new computers. When Windows 7 comes out we'll probably see the same situation: Linux at 2% market share (or in Slashspeak, 200% increase!!!), Vista running the major bulk of computers (and uber-stable by then), and Apple for people who wear stylish glasses (or just want a suite of applications to come with their computer). And people will complain about how Vista is so much better compared to Windows 7 then too.

Re:Another way to look at Vista's adoption rate (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860682)

Its faster in what ways?

I bought a new notebook with Vista and I notice basic i/o is much slower than Vista. Do programs launch quicker? It seems openoffice is faster but the last computer I ran it on was much slower.

Re:Another way to look at Vista's adoption rate (1)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860358)

Business is also waiting for Windows 2008 Server for a combined deployment strategy, as Vista's functionality in the business environment increases considerably when paired with 2008 Server.

Windows 2008 also takes advantage of the new deployment mechanisms in Vista, and rolling out Windows 2008 first and then creating the automated VIsta rollouts will be significantly easier than moving the desktops to Vista before 2008 Server arrives. It is also something business is looking forward to, as the ease of automated deployment that is designed into Windows 2008 server and Vista is virtually effortless in comparison to XP, and that is saying something as XP and Win2k were designed for automated deployment.

I prefer Vista to XP (1)

sfled (231432) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860690)

Well, sorry.

Six months ago I bought a drive and Vista Business OEM. I flipped the new drive into my laptop and launched the Vista installation DVD. The OS detected all the hardware (on a May 2006 Dell Inspiron), installed the appropriate drivers and rebooted flawlessly. I installed all of my apps, doing the compatibility thing for the ones that balked, and everything just works.

Please note: When Win2K came out every Win98SE lover bitched, then when XP came out every Win2K user bitched. It's a new day, bitch all you want then get over it.

Reality check (1, Informative)

Stan Vassilev (939229) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860088)

IE 6 users are equally likely to move to Firefox as they are to IE7 ...

Reality check [thecounter.com] :

1. MSIE 6.x (44%)
2. MSIE 7.x (35%)
3. FireFox (14%)
4. Safari (3%)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the word "equally", but we have 35% vs. 14%. Add the IE6 users, the number becomes 79%.

Should I also remind anyone that IE8 is under progress, including new UI and engine that passes ACID.

Re:Reality check (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860242)

Should I remind anyone who's interested that a facility which feeds food pellets to sheep is not a restaurant, regardless of the number of "meals" it serves?

If every pirated copy of Windows stopped working tomorrow, and people were forced to buy new ones or go to an alternative, I wonder what those browser numbers would be?

Re:Reality check (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21860316)

If every pirated copy of Windows stopped working tomorrow, and people were forced to buy new ones or go to an alternative, I wonder what those browser numbers would be?

Oh, playing "what if". That's fun.

If all current Firefox copies vanished, and Mozilla closed the source, and if it started selling it for $1000 the license, how much adoption would *Firefox* see?

Virtual reality check (5, Informative)

xant (99438) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860416)

Those numbers are as made-up as the numbers you find anywhere else. My company, which hosts surveys and therefore sees a very broad cross-section of the market, collects web statistics. I just analyzed our logs and got these numbers, which I trust far more than thecounter, whatever the fuck that is:

IE6 (all operating systems) 35.22%
FF (all operating systems and versions) 18.35%
IE7 (all OS) 18.15%
Other.. the rest

Should I also remind anyone that IE8 is under progress, including new UI and engine that passes ACID.

You could, if you wanted to hear someone remind you that Firefox 3 is about to come out (far sooner than IE8) and also passes ACID, as if that were relevant.

Note, these are not the opinions of my employer, but they are the data of my employer. :-)

Thank you (1)

russlar (1122455) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860094)

for telling us what we already know.

Re:Thank you (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860502)

Be thankful. Now you have a reference to cite.

I just found it funny... (1)

Fishchip (1203964) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860130)

...where one of the Vista advocates, apparently quite sincere in his belief, stated that Vista was so secure it'd never need to be patched. EVAR. I bought a laptop with Vista preinstalled recently. After four days I blew three hundred perfectly good dollars that could have gone towards beer on XP Home. A man should not have to be required to make such a sacrifice.

Re:I just found it funny... (1)

Bucc5062 (856482) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860238)

You know, there is always Linux. I hear you can find a good version at Ubuntu, or SUSE, or from a recent /. article, Fedora. Bummer that you already spent the dough.

I've been an MS user since 3.1 This year I switched all but my work system to Linux and have not had any real issues. Sometimes I stuggle with installs or devices, but much of what I want to do, I can do with Linux. MS choose a dark road a long time ago; one of greed, control, power. Those roads tend to end poorly.

Save money next time, try Linux and enjoy.

Re:I just found it funny... (1)

Fishchip (1203964) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860280)

It's a gaming laptop, or else yes, I would have taken the easy route. (Hells, it's my gaming computer period. My other machines are an iMac, a MacBook and a Sun Ultra 1 I fart around with Gentoo with)

Re:I just found it funny... (1)

Jasonjk74 (1104789) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860626)

"..try Linux and enjoy." Enjoy what? Not being able to play more than 3 games? Enjoy learning millions of arcane commands to install software? (Which some of us may find interesting, but not everyone has the inclination nor the ability to learn.) Enjoy not being able to use your wireless card, and having to use your video card in 24 bit mode (if you can get it configured at all)? I use Linux myself (I dual-boot Vista and Mepis 32 on my laptop; XP pro and SuSE 10.3 on my desktop), and it is much better than Windows in many ways. Unfortunately it is not realistic to try to tell your average user that they can entirely switch from Windows to Linux without sacrificing some functionality. Also, rather than admitting its deficiencies, Linux-users try to spin them as strengths. In the aforementioned example of there not being games, Linuxphiles will say "That's because people who use Linux aren't worried about games" or "Just buy an XBox 360 if you're worried about games." If it were the other way around and Linux had the vast library of titles, they would be touting that as another example of superiority over Windows. (Oops, I forgot to say "Windoze". Whew! I almost got my /. card revoked.)

Re:I just found it funny... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21860304)

That's very accurate with your sacrifice, every slashdotter should know better than to buy XP home. Especially for $300 when it retails for $99.

Re:I just found it funny... (1)

WaZiX (766733) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860740)

XP Home Upgrade: $99
XP Home: $199
XP Pro Upgrade: $199
XP Pro: $299
No Vista: Priceless! (sorry had to add this last one)

Anyways, I guess he meant XP Pro not upgrade.

Take it with a pinch of salt (1)

dwave (701156) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860284)

The nice diagrams show what browsers visit pcworld.com - a site whose visitors usually run Windows pre-installed without much tinkering. I remember other statistics from another IDG website where Firefox was leading. Take these statistics with a grain of salt. They say more about your visitors and not much about the actual market share of a browser. Nevertheless, more than 30 percent is pretty impressive for Firefox, especially on a site like pcworld.com.

Fire what (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21860312)

I use FireFox, but I still have yet to meet a single non-techy (or someone related to one or who works directly with techies) that uses Firefox. I'd say 90% of the people I'm talking about don't know what FireFox is.

Of course I've downloaded it about 100 times... and I'm guessing that 10% of population generates 90% of the web traffic.

Mac OS/X is the next step after XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21860382)

When I first saw Vista I realized that there is no upgrade path for me after XP.
I sold all my PC hardware and switched to Mac.
This was the best decision to make and it worked out pretty well even taking my 20 years of PC allegence.
Besides that I haven't used no MS program besides XP anyway...

If Linux had 14% usage in 11 months (4, Insightful)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860452)

We'd all be decrying the downfall of Microsoft. Does anyone realize how much 14% is? Its huge!

Re:If Linux had 14% usage in 11 months (1)

ctid (449118) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860658)

I think that 14% reflects the number of new PCs. I suspect that the number of people who have actually upgraded is miniscule and that is the difference between the stats for the first 11 months of XP and the first 11 months of Vista. Inevitably the number of Vista installations will trend upwards because it's hard to buy a PC with XP on it these days.

From Microsoft's point of view it doesn't really matter if people don't upgrade from XP to Vista because they are guaranteed sales of Vista with new PC purchases. So it doesn't matter too much if Vista is a bit of a mess at the moment - they will get their sales anyway because of their domination of retail OS installations. Presumably they intend to get round to fixing Vista in time but it doesn't really matter if they take their time over it - most purchasers realistically don't have much choice about using MS stuff because they wouldn't want to replace the operating system on their PCs.

Automatic 'upgrade' to IE7 (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860576)

Since the typical home user will answer 'yes' to a popup by Microsoft. How many of these upgrades are from XP users taking the automatic upgrade from IE6 to IE7? I wonder how many actually thought "hmm, instead of upgrading from IE6 to 7, i'll download firefox instead."

IE initially became popular because users did not need to make a choice.

Therefore, if you want Firefox to take off, you need to get it included/bundled with Windows.

The hating-Vista bandwagon (2, Informative)

Lord Aurora (969557) | more than 6 years ago | (#21860584)

I feel like a large majority of the people who hate Vista do it because they think they're supposed to. Similar to people who like Titanic because they think they're supposed to, even though it's horribly depressing and all in all not that great of a film, average at best; or MS fanboys who hate Mac because they think they're supposed to--while these feelings might have a legitimate basis somewhere (Vista does have problems, Titanic did receive good reviews, and Mac has only recently started to shine), when multiplied by a few hundred thousand misinformed people they cause mass confusion. I bought a cheap laptop running XP a while back, recently upgraded to a better system that runs Vista. I had heard that I shouldn't like Vista. It was the devil. I've been using it for 6 months now and none of the "huge problems" have surfaced--the "Cancel or Allow?" took some getting used to (and you can disable it), and everything is a trifle different from XP, but all in all I like it. The whole scandal about DRM and Vista is petty at best, the average user really doesn't have to worry about it. And as far as security goes, I was surfing around the internet essentially unprotected by outside sources for quite a while before installing McAfee, and didn't get a single virus, trojan, or piece of malware installed on my system (checked with both McAfee and AVG). I've also used the most recent Mac OS on friends' systems, and I like it, I just wouldn't use it myself. And my old machine still dual-boots Ubuntu--I'm a fan of it as well, but again, I like Vista better. In the end, I think people who hate on Vista need to give it an objective second look and think about whether or not it really is as bad as they've been led to believe. It hasn't been in my case.

Re:The hating-Vista bandwagon (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860650)

Have you used Vista?

Its better than WindowsME I suppose.

  I bought a new laptop last week which is a sparkling new AMD Turion x2 dual core with 2 gigs of ram and a fast 7200 rpm 200 gig drive and it came with Vista. My previous laptop was a Compaq which had a 1.7 ghz PentiumM with only 1 gig of ram and a slooww 4200 rpm drive running XP.

Man is this new machine slower than my compaq thanks to Vista. I could transfer hundreds of megs off my flashdrive to my XP machine with a 4200 rpm in about a minute. It takes 10x to do the same procedure with this new machine with a 7200 rpm drive. I/O really is crippled and it just feels like a downgrade though this machine is easily 3x as fast as my old one.

If I could downgrade to XP I could. There are no drivers for my video card or wifi card otherwise I would do it.

Yes its the new thing to hate Vista but there are some serious issues with it. This is especially true in a corporate environment where already slow network connection can occur with XP will take many times as long with Vista.

Maybe the situation will improve with a service pack but so far I use it because I have too and not because I had a choice. To me this is the Dos4 for the NT line.

Re:The hating-Vista bandwagon (1)

headkase (533448) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860788)

I've had the opposite experience: I have a Dual-Core Pentium D @ 3Ghz, 2GB RAM, Ati 1650, 1TB HD. And Vista runs great and I haven't had any major issues at all. And I don't even have any of the stability/compatibility hotfixes or even RC1 of the service pack installed. Like it or not Vista is what its going to be for the next 1/2 decade at least. It's not even mature yet! Once a service pack or two settles in along with the general Windows Update stuff trickles out it will - I'm sure - become an excellent operating system especially when paired with new hardware. Still I like all the branches of Linux and if it weren't for gaming that's what I'd probably be using.

Vista! (1)

begonia (177694) | more than 5 years ago | (#21860718)

My wife has Vista on her PC. It's pretty strong to say "everyone hates it", but on the other hand it really doesn't offer a whole lot over XP, and it comes with a raft of new problems. Drivers still commonly don't work. The DRM is an issue, and in an effort to beef up security, it is a little less easy to use. Plus they've moved a bunch of stuff around and for no particular purpose. My wife was almost getting to the point where she could find stuff on XP, and now it's like she's regressed to the third grade. She also has Office 2007, and frankly, I don't see that the fabled ribbon is too great. It's just another, and different, way of organizing the same old stuff, but a little more confusing if you're used to the old office.

I think Microsoft is in a world of hurt, and they just don't realize it because they're still making money. But I suspect in the not too distant future (say, 5 years or so) they will have enormous problems as they market share takes a big (and sudden) dive. And then everyone will act surprised and say they never saw it coming.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>