One in three Vista installs downgraded in the enterprise

By Justin Mann on August 19, 2008, 6:33 PM
What's the adoption rate for Vista in business environments? Excluding those companies who outright won't use it, and only including machines that are sold with Vista by default, it seems there is a significant number of companies “rolling back” to Windows XP. According to one particular study, the rate could be as high as a third – which some people might see as a reluctance to migrate.

The other two-thirds, though, tell a different story. According to those who performed the study, they are seeing similar figures in many different areas of enterprises. Even if many of those systems are downgraded, many are being left as-is. What's likely occurring is that a lot of companies are rolling out Vista, only downgrading to XP in situations where they know it is warranted.

Regardless of how you look at it, this is good for Microsoft. It shows people are willing to upgrade, and it shows that Microsoft made the right choice in allowing XP downgrades to continue unabated.




User Comments: 19

Got something to say? Post a comment
9Nails said:
Vista is a wonderful OS. I really do like it. But it's place in home of office has become muddled. If a home user has a problem, Vista prompts the user to "contact their system administrator." Umm, is that Mom or Dad? Maybe it's a teenage child? I get confused who's the System Administrator at home is. In business, server platforms have to be upgraded before any manageability benefits are available in Vista. Microsoft forgot to give any useful features to businesses with Novell NetWare eDirectory, Apple OS-X Directory Access or Windows 2003 Active Directory. Server 2008 came out 2 years after Vista. So, I'm really not sure who Vista was for! We don't downgrade any Vista installs. We simply refuse to purchase them. The computer must come with Windows XP and a driver disk. Vista does not work with our applications or servers, and there little benefit to upgrading our infrastructure.
aolish said:
9Nails, you make a very valid point, and one point that I've been trying to make since day one... "there is little benefit to upgrading to Vista." What is it about vista that will make me shell out 300$ to upgrade? someone please tell me. I still have yet to get an answer. Instead the only answers I get from vista fanboys is that the software is FREAKIN AWESOME AND THAT I JUST SUCK! lol... its the typical fanboy ranting I hear all the time.
KingDingDong said:
I agree with the both of you. I dont see the need to purchase expensive software especially with how well Xp works. I own vista utlimate only because I was given a oem copy from my school and while back. I use it only for DX10 as far as I know Xp can only use DX9. But if I had to purchase it, no way in h**l would I pay microsoft, not only because of the price but the bugs, along with; if I didnt have a capable computer it might cost more.(thank god us techies build ours, lol) Microsoft you sucked on this one, lets hope 7 is better.
yukka said:
The Vista Business SP1 version that I use all day at work running on Windows 2003 servers is as solid as XP.I already commented in another thread that the driver resolution is much improved - telling Vista to check windows update 9 times out of 10 will return usuable drivers. It also recommends fixs for problems telling you what the issue is with links to more information and a direct link to the file on the manufacturers website.It is hard to recommend Vista to someone over XP because if you run XP without problems, you wont be needing Vista. But if you are supporting thousands of machines, I would rather have Vista on them currently than XP.Vista "sucks" is a bit strong. Bugs? XP has bugs and last time I checked it didnt tell you about them and offer fixes.
nazartp said:
[b]Originally posted by aolish:[/b][quote]9Nails, you make a very valid point, and one point that I've been trying to make since day one... "there is little benefit to upgrading to Vista." What is it about vista that will make me shell out 300$ to upgrade? someone please tell me. I still have yet to get an answer. Instead the only answers I get from vista fanboys is that the software is FREAKIN AWESOME AND THAT I JUST SUCK! lol... its the typical fanboy ranting I hear all the time.[/quote]OK, now could you, please, explain to me, how the Vista pricing is different from XP pricing? Didn't you need to "shell" the same $300 for XP Pro as you need to shell it out for Vista Pro? Sorry, but your regular rants about how it is expensive are pretty much ungrounded. If I buy a machine with Vista pre-installed - who cares? Price is included and subsidized. On top of that for a home user there is no reason to downgrade due to a simple fact that Vista is at least no worse than XP. You don't want to buy Vista separately - don't. On the enterprise side I agree - it's too expensive to support several platforms.
The Muffin Man said:
Most business I manage Want XP because they are familiar with it and some programs they use run better on XP, however at work we run a 2008 and a 2003 server with full Vista clients… its much easier to manage and deploy on new PCs over XP using windows deployment or installing from the DVD
aolish said:
[b]Originally posted by nazartp:[/b][quote]OK, now could you, please, explain to me, how the Vista pricing is different from XP pricing? Didn't you need to "shell" the same $300 for XP Pro as you need to shell it out for Vista Pro? Sorry, but your regular rants about how it is expensive are pretty much ungrounded. [/quote]Vista pricing difference from XP is 98, i really dont have to say anymore lol...... 98-XP vs XP-Vista .... mmmm.... which one is MORE of an upgrade and worth the money? [Edited by aolish on 2008-08-20 10:11:23]
windmill007 said:
[b]Originally posted by nazartp:[/b][quote][b]Originally posted by aolish:[/b][quote]9Nails, you make a very valid point, and one point that I've been trying to make since day one... "there is little benefit to upgrading to Vista." What is it about vista that will make me shell out 300$ to upgrade? someone please tell me. I still have yet to get an answer. Instead the only answers I get from vista fanboys is that the software is FREAKIN AWESOME AND THAT I JUST SUCK! lol... its the typical fanboy ranting I hear all the time.[/quote]OK, now could you, please, explain to me, how the Vista pricing is different from XP pricing? Didn't you need to "shell" the same $300 for XP Pro as you need to shell it out for Vista Pro? Sorry, but your regular rants about how it is expensive are pretty much ungrounded. If I buy a machine with Vista pre-installed - who cares? Price is included and subsidized. On top of that for a home user there is no reason to downgrade due to a simple fact that Vista is at least no worse than XP. You don't want to buy Vista separately - don't. On the enterprise side I agree - it's too expensive to support several platforms.[/quote]See I disagree... I think if you have use windows OS since windows 95 days and currently use XP and have had no problems you will be less likely to like Vista. I repair computers and work at a bank in the IT department. From a power user perspective I really don't like working with Vista. It takes to long to get where I want and everything is moved around. From a gamer perspective directx10 really isn't that much better to force me to upgrade either. Plus you actually have lower frame rates in vista. Not as much since SP1 but but any in book is to much. From a business standpoint there is nothing we NEED vista for. Plus Vista doesn't support active desktop and we have our INTRANET displaying on all our workstations....That is a big show stopper. Vista has gadgets. Eye Candy with alt-tab...Who uses that crap ..Newbies..I turn off all that stuff...I want speed. I think Microsoft needs to go back to the drawing board. We aren't all newbies and it would be nice if they had less versions. Maximum-PC had a great article on vista and what microsoft should do to fix in the next version> i suggest all you read that and see if you don't agree.
aolish said:
[b]Originally posted by windmill007:[/b][quote]See I disagree... I think if you have use windows OS since windows 95 days and currently use XP and have had no problems you will be less likely to like Vista. I repair computers and work at a bank in the IT department. From a power user perspective I really don't like working with Vista. It takes to long to get where I want and everything is moved around. From a gamer perspective directx10 really isn't that much better to force me to upgrade either. Plus you actually have lower frame rates in vista. Not as much since SP1 but but any in book is to much. From a business standpoint there is nothing we NEED vista for. Plus Vista doesn't support active desktop and we have our INTRANET displaying on all our workstations....That is a big show stopper. Vista has gadgets. Eye Candy with alt-tab...Who uses that crap ..Newbies..I turn off all that stuff...I want speed. I think Microsoft needs to go back to the drawing board. We aren't all newbies and it would be nice if they had less versions. Maximum-PC had a great article on vista and what microsoft should do to fix in the next version> i suggest all you read that and see if you don't agree.[/quote]forced upgrades also didn't make vista attractive at all, lets add that to the list. Halo 2 for Vista only? LOL!
yukka said:
I find that Vista is just as easy to use as XP once you get used to it. 98 to 2000 had changes to the UI. 2000 to XP not so much but after a bit of time using it, I am as confident about being able to quickly do what I need to do on Vista as I ever was on XP.I am not sure how valid it is to argue that "its all moved round" but users that I have dealt with like the look and feel of Vista.I hate to suggest that people that can't find stuff are offering an opinion without actually using it for any length of time..
DarkCobra said:
Well I go all the way back to Windows 3.1 then 95 and up through all the rest to today with three computers running at home with Vista Home Premium. Personally, i prefer XP and don't see much improvement with Vista. No doubt there are improvements for some applications for sure. It's just that for my needs I see no significant advantages. Aero is slick but it's a resource hog. U.A.C. is a total pain and a joke which I've disabled (as most power users will).I suspect that Microsoft has regretted Vista which may explain why they decided to continue support for XP following world wide demand that they do so. I also think they regret Vista because they are rushing full speed ahead with it's replacement (Windows 7) and I even hear they are shooting for a 2009 release! I said this before in regards to Windows 7 and I'll repeated it . . . I just hope this time around they get it "Right" instead of getting it "Right Away".My advice is that folks stay with XP and await Windows 7 unless there is something in Vista you just gotta have (and believe me there isn't all that much). Gamer's will prefer the faster frame rates in XP, it's a system where most of the bugs have been ironed out and pretty much everything works just fine. Vista is ok now that I've figured it out. They have moved around some things, but I view it as more of a side-ways move than an upgrade from XP. Hopefully, Windows 7 will be a true upgrade improvement for us all.
abakus said:
man the true advantage of vista comes with 64bit version. vista-64 is simply much much better than xp64. the 32-bit compatible mode has been improved significantly to make the 64-bit has almost no problem to run most 32-bit softwares. Otherwise I do agree that vista-32 has no obvious improvement over xp-32.
DarkCobra said:
You are so right on that one! One of my three Vista computers is a quad core 64bit Vista and it screams in terms of speed. It is quite smooth with my old 32bit apps as well. Then again a primary reason could be the 6g's of RAM on it as well. XP tops out at 4g's.
PanicX said:
[b]Originally posted by abakus:[/b][quote]man the true advantage of vista comes with 64bit version. vista-64 is simply much much better than xp64. the 32-bit compatible mode has been improved significantly to make the 64-bit has almost no problem to run most 32-bit softwares. Otherwise I do agree that vista-32 has no obvious improvement over xp-32.[/quote]Most people will see no benefit from running 64bit processing over 32bit processing. The main significance of 64bit processing is that it can calculate very specific tasks twice as fast as 32bit processing. However unless you're dealing with large databases, scientific computing, or 64bit optimized encryption its not likely you observe these benefits. 64 bit also increases memory pointer size therefore requiring more memory space for the same amount of data of 32bit pointers. The only real advantage from 64bit computing is the ability to address over 4Gb of RAM... which the average user doesn't come close to.
abakus said:
Isn't "the ability to address over 4Gb of RAM" a HUGE benefit? especially when RAM are as cheap as toilet papers nowadays?
windmill007 said:
[b]Originally posted by abakus:[/b][quote]Isn't "the ability to address over 4Gb of RAM" a HUGE benefit? especially when RAM are as cheap as toilet papers nowadays?[/quote]I don't think at this point in time... I have 4GB but only see 3.2GB in XP. I play tons of games and have tons of windows open. I don't come close to touching my max memory. At this point in time unless you are doing cad or some video editing you will not need more.I think Microsoft needs to make Windows 7 64bit only. Otherwise what is the point. Most people will stick with 32bit. I thought of going 64-bit but at this time what is the point. You still have some compatibility issues and you really gain nothing. Just like Vista there really is no point.
abakus said:
[b]Originally posted by windmill007:[/b][quote][b]Originally posted by abakus:[/b][quote]Isn't "the ability to address over 4Gb of RAM" a HUGE benefit? especially when RAM are as cheap as toilet papers nowadays?[/quote]I don't think at this point in time... I have 4GB but only see 3.2GB in XP. I play tons of games and have tons of windows open. I don't come close to touching my max memory. At this point in time unless you are doing cad or some video editing you will not need more.I think Microsoft needs to make Windows 7 64bit only. Otherwise what is the point. Most people will stick with 32bit. I thought of going 64-bit but at this time what is the point. You still have some compatibility issues and you really gain nothing. Just like Vista there really is no point.[/quote]I experienced virtually no compatibility issue at all. and if you consider your pc a tool more than just browsing or playing mp3 then you'll appreciate the > 3.5 G boost.
PanicX said:
[b]Originally posted by abakus:[/b][quote]Isn't "the ability to address over 4Gb of RAM" a HUGE benefit? especially when RAM are as cheap as toilet papers nowadays?[/quote]Not particularly. The average user has less than 2Gb of RAM installed and wouldn't seen any benefits of a larger cache. Also, very few programs could even come close to denting a cache over 4Gb, installing 8Gb of RAM will mainly give you bragging rights and nothing more. You'd really need to be running database services or video compiling to demand such a cache.... and if you're doing either of those, Windows isn't likely the OS you should be using if performance is what you're after.
xstayxtruex said:
i dont think that eye candy makes the better OS. Reliability, stability, performance, all around general lack of confusion, make the better OS. apparently vista wasnt designed for that sort of thing. Vista was designed with the GUI in mind. Personally. oo's and ah's with stupid dingys like transparent 3D window headings and sidebars that note how crappy your system runs now that you've "upgraded" to vista, + no network setup wizards, take a back seat to performance in my book.
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.