Windows Vista at 1 year: A computer maker's view

I've been working for a while on an upcoming story coinciding with Windows Vista's first year on the market, and I've talked with a variety of people who have been using and working with the Microsoft operating system in different ways.

One of the most interesting perspectives came from Jon Bach, president of Puget Systems, a company in Kent, Wash., that makes high-end custom computers. As a preview, I thought it would be worth sharing some excerpts from his comments ...

On the current demand for Windows XP vs. Windows Vista: "Today, we are seeing still slightly stronger Vista demand than XP, but it's pretty close, maybe 60 percent Vista, 40 percent XP. It was an interesting progression of events following the Vista release, because when Vista first came out, we naturally adopted it very quickly, everyone did, as the next prominent operating system. But we're a custom builder, so we wanted to continue to provide all options, so we kept XP around so that customers who weren't all that excited about upgrading had a choice. So we actually developed a little niche for ourselves there when all the big guys -- Dell, HP -- were going exclusively to Vista. We saw extra-strong XP sales during that time just because we were one of the few people still offering it as an option. But as soon as people realized that Vista had some maturity problems in the code, the big manufacturers promptly added it back. ... We're seeing, you could say 50-50, but it's a little bit swaying toward Vista."

Continue Reading @ Todd Bishops Blog

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Could Pandora open up Linux games?

Next Story

Will the Windows 7 Launch Be Like Windows 95?

16 Comments

God forbid it be built for new hardware and take advantage of it... You'd be foolish to purchase new hardware and run an old OS on it, which is why I think Windows 95 might be well-suited for you.

Vista runs incredibly smoothly with 2 gigs of RAM, though I've had no problems running it with only 1 gig and an Athlon XP 3000 on one of my HTPCs. I think it's entirely acceptable performance for a machine that's three years old.

Windows XP runs GREAT on new hardware and older hardware as well. Vista however really calls for newer hardware to run well. It's not so much the memory because it's pretty cheap but the CPU needs to be upgraded, top of the line dual core or quad core makes Vista run as well as XP did on Pentium 4 with hyperthreading.

I'm sure in 2011 after Vista has been out for 5 years and the hardware has gotten a lot faster that this will all be repeated once more with Windows 7.

Unfortunately, thats what you need to make Vista run well.

My figures represent a 80-20 on Xp/Vista sales.

Guess it varies....

While I know how to build computers, I usually do it through a friend because he finds some ridiculous deals as to anything I could find. Anyhow, all the computers I've purchased through him (for myself and the family) are all XP.

Mostly, my family and I just need something that can run on a lower end machine to do basic stuff. Of course, mine's set up for gaming but Vista + gaming would probably kill it (4 year old machine). :P

(Raa said @ #3)
Unfortunately, thats what you need to make Vista run well..

Do what?

Crikey my poor S939 X2 with a mere 2gb of RAM manages rather well..

Thanks for the FUD.

Actually, I just helped a friend set up their new $500 (with monitor and printer) Dell desktop they just got at Best Buy that runs Vista very well. I believe it was an Athlon X2 4000+ with 2GB RAM.

My main machine at home is a 2-year-old Athlon X2 3800+ overclocked from factory 2.0GHz to 2.7GHz with 4GB RAM and Vista x64, and I have no complaints. Aside from every day Word documents e-mail and Internet, I do some photo (Photoshop CS3) and video (Sony Vegas 8 Pro) editing, gaming (TF2, Crysis, Quake Wars), development (both in Java and .NET), and use Media Center (with dual TV tuners) and the Zune software alot and it performs perfectly. The only reason I upgraded to 4GB over 2GB is because it was cheap.

I actually tried Vista when it first came out on the same PC, and it was as bad as everyone keeps saying it is, but then I gave it another go sometime in August once a few patches were released and driver support got better and haven't looked back.

(dangel said @ #3.2)

Do what?

Crikey my poor S939 X2 with a mere 2gb of RAM manages rather well..

Thanks for the FUD.

Agreed.

Vista runs very well on my system which is a AMD Sempron 2800+ with 1.5Gb RAM and a GF6200 video card.

I've spoken to a few people who don't believe that it can run well on low-end hardware, so I'm tempted to post a video on YouTube showing it running to prove it.

I've set up Vista on several PCs and can say that you really start enjoy working with it when you have something like AMD x64 4000+ with 2gb ram and a good video card, though for gaming it is not good enough (for highest settings, of course)

When Vista hit the streets my system was still running XP. Once I found someone to buy it I switched to Mac and never looked back. Funny enough, I make a living fixing Windows issues. Tried Ubuntu and didn't see it's brilliance.

It all depends on what you are doing at the end of the day. Now a days all the OS choices out there will essentially get you to the end result you need, be it internet usage, digital production, gaming or regular work related things. There is no better OS right now but a bevy of good ones.

Now a days all the OS choices out there will essentially get you to the end result you need, be it internet usage, digital production, gaming or regular work related things. There is no better OS right now but a bevy of good ones.

I have to disagree with you there. Internet usage, yes, it's pretty much the same on every OS. Digital production? Windows and Mac are about equal (imo. some would disagree with me, but they're wrong :-P), but Linux is seriously lacking. Gaming? Mac and Linux are a joke compared to Windows. Work? It depends on what your job is, but I guess I might be able to get by on Linux at work if I had to, and possibly even MacOS...but that'll never happen.

Actually, that's a verifiable statement, so it's technically a fact whether it is true or not. I don't see why you have any reason to doubt it. Why wouldn't most people purchasing a new computer get the newest OS with it? I think the figures make sense, or if anything, a 60/40 slant in Vista's direction is too conservative. Your vendetta, be it against Microsoft or Vista, makes you sound bullheaded and contrary. People are purchasing Vista, so swallow that and get over it.

I run Vista and I don't really like it... It crashes a lot and a lot of my hardware isn't even supported. One might ask: "Hey Phrost, why do you continue using Vista when it sucks?"

To that I would say... good point. I use Vista cuz I'm too lazy to switch back. :P

Commenting is disabled on this article.