Windows 7 chatter having a significant negative effect on Vista

Windows 7 chatter having a significant negative effect on Vista

Summary: Yesterday I asked for a show of hands to find out whether chatter about the next version of Windows is putting off Hardware 2.0 from deploying Vista. The results are very interesting indeed.


Yesterday I asked for a show of hands to find out whether chatter about the next version of Windows is putting off Hardware 2.0 from deploying Vista. The results are very interesting indeed.

I posted three polls.  So far, each poll has received between 2,300 and 2,700 votes.  Let's take a look at the results so far.

Poll #1:

Poll #1

Here we have a clear and unambiguous result.  80% of Hardware 2.0 readers who haven't deployed Vista seem happy to skip Vista and wait for Windows 7 to make an appearance. 

On the face of it that doesn't seem like good news for Microsoft, but in the longer term it's actually not really that dire.  While it's perfectly possible to skip one Windows version, skipping two isn't so easy and individuals and companies alike will have to either start to seriously think about upgrading or migrating to a different OS - and for most upgrading is going to be less hassle than migrating. 

Poll #2:

Poll #2

Interesting.  While 51% would be happy to stick with XP SP2 until 2010, 34% are eagerly awaiting SP3.  SP3 could give XP a newfound lease of life and be a further reason for some to give Vista a miss.

Poll #3:

Poll #3

This is interesting.  A full 45% of voters are giving Vista a miss based on the word of others.  While I expected this figure to be pretty high (I wouldn't expect everyone considering Vista to take the time to test it out), I'm staggered by it being this high.  It seems that bad press about Windows Vista really is putting off people from migrating.


Topics: Operating Systems, Microsoft, Software, Windows

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Not surprised.... the least. My experiences with Vista have been that its hardware requirements are ridiculous for what you get for the upgrades. And Im sure this is a major beef with a lot of people. The same hardware that is required for Vista is a power house machine for XP and so you get significant results in XP while Vista merely chugs along like the little red engine that could. I wouldntve got Vista except that it came with my laptop and then later down the road had to upgrade the memory because the minimum requirements werent enough. I even went so far as to install Ubuntu on a second partition of the drive so I had a choice of something barely getting along or something screaming down the road.
    • Yup, typical MS "completely the wrong argument" scenario

      MS DELIBERATELY started the chat about Windows 7 to take the focus away from the complete abortion that is Vista, and feed hype that they MAY be going to deliver something.

      And now what? We're supposed to buy Vista because we feel sorry for Monopolysoft?

      Welcome to the age of protectionism.

      If Vista sales were high, all that MS would do is use the revenue to try to kill off Google and FOSS.
  • Your one of the misinformers ....

    ... that 45% are listening to. On a new laptop with 1GB of Ram Vista peforms very well.
    • How odd....

      ....that my vista ran sluggish with the 1gb of ram then when I upgraded to 2 it ran much smoother. Minimum requirements are just that, the bare minimum and a great way for OSes to boost hardware sales because people dont want their OS to run poorly.
      • Vista runs just fine with 1GB of RAM.

        I'm running Vista Ultimate on a P4-1.5GHz with 1GB RAM. It runs remarkably well.

        But if you really feel the need to use it with 2GB an additional GB will set you back a whopping $13 for name brand memory:

        A 2GB kit can be had for $28:

        A new, well equipped dual core system can be had for $350:

        Let this die already. Vista's HW requirements are a non-issue.
        • All I can say is why not use more

          It's cheap and Vista will run better with it as it Vista is capable of handling a lot of RAM. Why not make use of that with RAM this cheap.

          I ran XP and Windows on 256 MB or RAM. They ran fine but boy they run better with 1 GB. That's normal.
          • Irrelevant.

            My point was not to advocate using as little memory as possible with Vista. My point was that it runs well even with 1GB and therefore faulting Vistas based on its HW requirements is just whining.
          • I'd agree

            The more Ram you can have the more Ram you can use. It would be silly to make an OS work on as little as possible if you didn't need to. The machines today have the Ram. So if you are complaining about slowness due to RAM then add ram it's cheap.
        • Wrong ....

          Thats DDR 2 ... At 1.5GHZ MOSt machines are running DDR which still is around 55-75 USD per gigabyte.

          Most DUAL core machine at around $350 , such as the one you quote are Ok fro running VISTA BASIC. The VIDEO is much to anemic to run the Full Vista "WoW". So add another $50 - $100 USD for a GOOD video card.
          • Go back and re-read what I wrote.

            There you'll find I gave an example of Vista running fine with 1GB of memory. It was not to say the system uses DDR2 memory (it uses PC-133). Memory prices on pre-DDR2 memory essentially render a cost effective upgrade worthless. At Micro Center the highest capacity PC-133 DIMM they sell is 512MB and it costs $67. If your computer is capable of handling four of these DIMMs (mine cannot) you'd spend $268 for 2GB. At that price you'd be better off buying a new system (such as the one I quoted) for $350. It comes standard with 2GB and a copy of Vista Home Premium. These two items alone for an older PC would total $398. You'd be paying more and still be stuck with an older system.

            As for the performance of the system quoted it comes standard with Vista Home PREMIUM. Which means it has the capability to run Aero. If the video capabilities of the system aren't sufficient for your needs it's likely you're not going to be satisfied with the video performance of your older computer and another $50 - $100 is not going to pose a problem for you.
          • And .....

            All of this is true. However, most of the people that come to me THINK they need to upgrade to Vista, have bought the Premium version and are disappointed in its perfor4mance (on older hardware) and just don't have any extra money left over to spend on newer hardware. It is NOT worth it to upgrade to VISTA for them.

            FWIW, the Whole VISTA eXperience could/sholda been better executed.
          • See my recommendation post. (nt)

          • BACK INTIME

            Those memory prices might have been correct a while ago. I'm waiting on 4GB of memory to arrive. 2GB of DDR and 2GB of DDR2. Price is about $110 including delivery.

            I have a Vista machine for testing our proprietary apps. A Pentium 1.5 with 1GB of PC133 memory runs it adequately. With this kind of machine I see an improvement using ReadyBoost with several apps opened at once.

            I spent $50 for a 256MB video card in order to check out Aero so my total cost to check out Vista was $0 without Aero and $50 with Aero. Add $20 for the flash drive running ReadyBoost and the total cost of upgrading to run Vista with Aero and ReadyBoost on this old dog was $70.
        • Linux runs fine with much less ;-)

          And you don't have to pay for everything that moves from thereonin ;-)
          • They won't understand frugality or the "average user"

            One reason companies grow is because they understand frugality. These companies grow from people that understand it. So it would seem that the smart thing for a consumer to do is make good use of the resources they have rather than running out to buy something when they don't have to. I am glad to extend the lives of my 1GB laptop and dekstop and 512MB home server for who knows how long. I can build suitable boxes from dirt cheap "yesterday's" hardware and get the performance I need.

            In addition we are talking about the same "average user" that can't install Linux and can't understand the command line being able to understand memory specs and pop open their box to install it. I thought the average user didn't know anything and just needed it to work but now they have their A+ certs all of a sudden.
          • "now they have their A+ certs all of a sudden"

            LOL, yup. Look he's holding a hammer - Sir, will you come and tune up my car for me please - you certainly look qualified ;-)
          • Think it's almost time

            for frothy3,

            The only hammer you should be worried about is a banhammer, for your continuous trolling.
          • Ban those non-ms disciples?

            Are you a religious extremist or something?

            Something freaky about free speech for ya?

            Not everyone brainwashed into your way of thinking?
          • nope.

            Just knock off a few troll who are a hindrance to free thought and speech by their repetitive and shill nonsense.

            You're becoming the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater.
          • Are you kidding, fr0thy?

            This is a free world. You can say anything you want, as long as it is spoken in loving, kind, and reverent adoration of Microsoft, and agrees with rtk (and a few of his buddies) all the time.

            Meanwhile, zip your lip and stay on your toes, lest King Microsoft come down on thee with a vengeance, and dub thee a troll.
            Ole Man