InfoWorld finds 35 percent of enterprise-class users downgrade to XP
By Darren Murph 
posted August 18th 2008 7:11PM
posted August 18th 2008 7:11PM
Hold your horses, vaquero. Let's not blow this all out of proportion here. While it's no secret that a certain amount of Vista purchasers are utilizing that "downgrade to XP" option to its fullest extent, a small (and let us emphasize "small") collection of data suggests that some 35% of "mainly enterprise-class users" have opted for XP over Vista on their newly-purchased rig. By scouring data from the 3,000 or so members feeding information to the InfoWorld Windows Sentinel tool, the site found that just over 1 in 3 users had defected to Microsoft's previous OS. Granted, the tool cannot take into account Linux users or even the "Hackintosh crowd," though as Randall Kennedy puts it, 35% is "still a huge percentage, and way out of proportion for even the dramatically unpopular Windows Vista."Update: The author of our source here has seen been released from InfoWorld due to breach of trust. InfoWorld maintains that Randall C. Kennedy's "insight and analysis [is believed] to be accurate and reliable."
I dun really wanna sound liek a fanboy here... but how would a freeware performance monitor be able to provide information about "Enterprise Class" users...
I babysit servers... built in windows functions are superior to that lil freeware widget
I would not consider an IT fellow who thought otherwise to be a competent "Enterprise Class" user... so I'm not going to take this number too seriously
I wonder what it'd have been if the title were "InfoWorld finds 65% of enterprise-class users stick with Vista". Maybe a more positive meaning?
Or how about if Randall Kennedy maybe mentioned some other reasons why these companies are downgrading to XP, like maybe they realize that a lot of their XP-only software isn't upgradable, or that it just isn't feasible. Instead of just pushing the old "the dramatically unpopular Windows Vista" label that the media keeps doing.
And it's just a number. 3,000 is probably a small proportion of how many enterprise employees there really are.
I've never heard of one company using Vista.
That was a very meaningful comment.
I just asked my grandmother and she's never heard of one company using Vista either.
@CraigJ,
People like you really make no sense, honestly. Because _you_ have issues with the OS, assuredly everyone else has the same problems, assuredly because everybody else has at or below the same level of intelligence you and every other Vista-trashing fanboi, and, again, assuredly it's everyone else's fault.
::sigh::
Really, your anecdotal a best claims that "everything runs slow-as-fuck" and half-assed comparisons to Apple only illustrate your room-temperature understanding of your own criticisms with the thing in the first place. I think your exaggurations are a bit too outlandish, I've never seen a scenario where windows XP transferred files as fast as you say it does and Vista did the same as slow as you claim. Perhaps it's because you never bothered using SP1 (where arguably the file transfer speed was increased) and simply never installed SATA AHCI drivers? Whatever the case, I really don't care, this is another example of you failing it hard.
UAC isn't a touted security feature. It isn't. Turn it the hell off and stop bitching.
Signed drivers don't fail to install. Perhaps you should direct your blame to the requisite OEMs instead of the OS. You didn't bother being specific (gee, I wonder why?), but the kind of driver problems you describe were something I saw in RC1 rather than SP1.
30% slower? Now you're just pulling numbers out of your various orifices. What kind of subjective nonsense is that anyhow?
Honestly, this isn't an Apple versus Windows comparison that you started with; it's an XP versus Vista comparison. Stop trying to make it something it isn't. I don't enjoy supporting it, I don't make my living from it (honestly, where do you people get off psychoanalyzing how I make a living? LMAO), and honestly, I don't really give a rat's ass what you think about it. Just try to have at least a room temperature IQ about the whole thing and cite some statistics when you're trash-talking like this.
One last guess; I bet you waited for XP SP2 to switch from 2000.
My experience with Vista has been kind of roller coaster.
I have XP on my desktop at home and Vista ultimate on my HP notebook. I run it on T5300,1GB,256MB-7600GS. I feel Microsoft have just given the same options but getting to these is what has changed. Beyond that its only the look of the OS that has changed. Interestingly though I am pretty amazed at its stability and its speed. I would say its much better than on my XP (which runs on a Athlon642800+), 6800GT, 1GB Ram.
I write out DVD's much faster on my Vista than on my XP. Windows explorer is much faster and so I PDF document loading within IE7 as compared to IE6 and Firefox 2/3.
Now I have a Vista business desktop at work which runs on 2GB memory. Its lightning on this system too and I copy 10+GB files often over the office network.
I must say too that backwards compatibility option on Vista really works well. I do think most people do not give it a try. I have had CAD & simulation tools work only when I moved to 2000 compatibility.
I would never have moved to Vista based on what it offers as compared to XP but its definitly not worth downgrading to XP if your system specs are good enough to run it.
I wonder though why did these 35% firstly spend that money to move to Vista when they already knew their systems would be too slow. I am sure they are all planning on going to Vista based on what Windows 7 time line is.
So 65% of business types use vista?
So...
Isn't this a good thing (for Vista)?
35% of car owners replace their Fords with Porsches, then go back to using Fords.
Does that mean the other 65% of car owners all have Porsches? No.
If XP is a Ford and Vista is a Porsche, why do they cost the same amount of cash?
WTF?!
Why did this "Phelps" dude just copy and paste from my previous post, and randomly insert a link to some random page that has nothing to do with anything?!
That's quite the first ever post there! I mean, assuming you're actually new here, and not just someone who was banned before, and is back with a new screen name to post the same kind of spam all over again.
OK, it's gone now! :)
as someone who has used vista all day, day in day out since launch, it still does confuse me when people "can't stand" it. I just can't see where these people are coming from.
about 6 months ago, i upgraded a friends pc from xp to vista for them. Once it was all done and logged it was like waching a child run the oval office. He couldnt work out how to do anything - but why? the basic layout is identical, but with a lot of new and better enhancements which in my opinion make vista quicker to use than XP. After a day or two he got used to it, but not after blaming it for him struggling. My question here is ; why did he find an easier and more intuitive interface harder to use, and does this represent a large number of people who get a new machine, for whatever reason get confused by it, blame the systme and just downgrade without updating and accustomizing to what is a superior OS.
Yeh fair play XP runs fast, but considering it's 8 years old and thus designed for 8 year old hardware it should do. I personally found XP to be terrible for at least 18 months and didnt adapt for nearly two years. It was the definition of unuseable. At launch i couldnt use my printer, sound card and various other things. At vista launch the only thing i had issue with was my soundcard, which was Creative's fault and no one elses. Yet people are much quicker to dismiss Vista, despite the transition actually being more comfortable than the one made to XP.
I dual booted ubuntu last week, and whilst i *love* the interface, i cant get along with it on a daily basis. firstly it's no noticeably faster than my vista setup. Secondly i cant get my wireless, or creative suite to work, despite spending hours trying. I installed it to see what the fuss is about, and so far other than the great interface (which is a luxury, not a neccessity) i can't see a good reason to stick with it, because i cant actually do most the things vista lets me.
From my point of view, there is no real need for a lot of enterprise to upgrade from XP to vista - because XP probably does everything they need without any extra expense. That's not to say vista has no purpose or selling point, it's just that the added benefits of vista probably dont outweigh the benefits of them staying with a tried and tested system that wont cost them anything extra to continue with. I'm not convinced people downgrading from vista to XP is neccessarily a slight on vista, but merely the convienience of XP.
I personally wouldnt dream of going back to XP. I only recently turned off UAC, but it didnt really bother me before, i liked the fact nothing was happening unless i said so, quick search/launch in the SM is invaluable. Perhaps ive had few problems as i keep my PC updated (hardware every 18 months or so and software) but i dont see the problem in vista demanding a modern machine. Vista offers a hell of a lot over XP and mostly does it very well.
I'm also learning gradually, that apple doesnt "just work" as well, although am considering banging OSX on to see how i get on, although i get the impression its just ubuntu with a proper installer package
Oh look another Vista sucks article. Its amazing how misinformed everyone is. Like others have pointed out show me a major enterprise that switched OS's at a rapid pace? Probably not many if any do. Its too expensive. THey need to certify all the software again they need all new machines etc. I remember where I last worked we were using Windows 2000 until 2005 and probably longer because that's when I left and they were still using it then. And that was a 8,000 person operation. We were still using Pentium 3 machines on some computers with 512mb of ram it took a while just to upgrade all the PC's to a XP capable machine. And then oh my the world is shocked when the enterprises don't switch to Vista? It must be because Vista is terrible and the blog-o-sphere was right! Its a shame most issues people have with Vista are mainly because they heard from their techie friends that it sucked and their techie friends know it sucks because they read it in some blog or that they feel everyone needs the Ultimate edition when most would be fine with the Home Premium.
i hate vista
I'm not exactly sure how those numbers were determined, but I know our company has bought a couple of laptops that were purchased with Vista on them. The only reason we did that was because like many mid-sized corporations, we have a volume license, so it didn't matter if we asked for XP or not. The first thing we did once the laptops arrived was wipe Vista and go back to XP.
There are only two reasons to downgrade from Vista to XP.
1. In corporate, education, and even small businesses you have clients who are using specific software applications to do specific jobs. The problem is that the makers of those programs have been to lazy or incapable over the last year and a half to make there applications Vista compatible, thus creating a need for XP. The excuse about hardware, eh, I don't have by any means the fastest system and Vista runs quite comparable to XP (dual booted, same hardware, same speeds).
2. Fear. A few people out there said some bad things about Vista either by having a rare case of actual problems or they were to computer illiterate to understand that it would be different than XP and how to adapt. Then everyone hears these comments and is afraid to to try it. I'll admit, it's different and takes a bit to get used to it.
I am currently running programs that specificaly say they will not run on Vista, in Vista. I haven't had a crash or any other issue with Vista in a year of running it. That year includes gaming, video editing, audio editing/recording, video playback, and all the common tasks.
The only time I run XP is to work with programs that don't run on Vista. These programs have not been updated to work on Vista. By no means is that a problem with Vista or the fault of MS.
I wonder how many people that are hating on Vista, have actually tried it and had issues that are truly the fault of Vista and MS.
just like to say how awesome that pic is with windows/the scream. I work as an IT support person, and that just become my desktop background, albeit very stretched out. if you have a high res version of it, please let me know.
Most people don't like Vista. Who's fault is that?
It's cumbersome and doesn't work any better than XP for our office; actually worse as we had to buy new printers since there were no new drivers for them.
The old mac powerbook I bought runs better, and it's nearly seven years old.
No more technical BS, finally a computer that just works.
people don't seem to understand that business users need to install business software, such as lotus notes, oracle, peoplesoft, etc.
Of the 3, I know for sure that PeopleSoft does not run on Vista, so such a person would need to downgrade.