Analyst: Vista to see fastest adoption rate ever

Despite steep hardware requirements, Windows Vista will see a significantly quicker adoption rate than any its predecessors, according to a software analyst. Ovum Software Practice Leader David Mitchell is quoted by IT World as saying that up to 15% of PC users will upgrade within the first year of the operating system’s release. By contrast, Mitchell says between 12% and 14% of the PC-using population made the jump to Windows XP in the 12 months following its release in October 2001.

According to Mitchell, there has been “a bit of pent-up demand” in the consumer market, as evidenced by the high adoption rate for the public beta release of Vista. Upgrade coupons shipping with many pre-built PCs will also ensure that the large number of users who purchase new systems during the busy holiday season will be entitled to an upgrade to Vista. Meanwhile, in the corporate world, companies participating in Microsoft’s Software Assurance program will automatically receive upgrades.

Comments closed
    • Krogoth
    • 14 years ago

    Meanwhile, IT support staff rejoice at the prospect of job security.

    • tygrus
    • 14 years ago

    The HYPE will continue to build up before release. Let the FUD rebutal start.
    The have hyped previous versions with underperforming results.
    “Windows XP Adoption Rates Slow” [http://www.betanews.com/article/Windows_XP_Adoption_Rates_Slow/1118943913]. The old PC’s generally keep the old OS and changes are only made when the PC is replaced (ie. shipped as OEM).

    ‘Fastest Windows OS ever’ will vapourise with the high RAM&HD usage and especially with all the non-productive eye-candy turned on.
    Expect >100MB worth of updates in first 6months.

    They make a dozen features better, add a dozen virtually useless, and stuff-up another dozen features that previously worked.

    • Jigar
    • 14 years ago

    FTW i am not going to upgrade to vista … atleast for 2 years.

    • slot_one
    • 14 years ago

    I hate how Vista treats my soundcards. Both my X-Fi and Audigy soundcards sound like sh!t under Vista. No bass, no equalizer, no sound quality. 🙁

      • just brew it!
      • 14 years ago

      I think that is probably more Creative’s fault than Microsoft’s. Creative is responsible for providing the driver support for that stuff.

      • d0g_p00p
      • 14 years ago

      I am in the same boat. I decided to use my onboard sound (nForce4 + the crab) to handle 5.1 surround till Creative gets off their asses and makes a decent driver (LAWL) for Vista.

        • Fighterpilot
        • 14 years ago

        Not sure what your problem is there Dog…I have an Audigy2 ZS and the Vista drivers from Creative(both sets) have worked just fine and all game sounds,iTunes,WMP11 and systems sounds are normal.

          • moose17145
          • 14 years ago

          Im having the same problems with my X-Fi Music in Vista also, equilizers not working right/at all, it won’t upmix my MP3’s and a lot of stuff just overall sounds like crap. I have dropped the most recent drivers on it too till i switched back to XP because i got sick of my soundcard not doing even half of what it can do in XP.

    • Resomegnis
    • 14 years ago

    In other news, Dewey Defeats Truman!

    • Samlind
    • 14 years ago

    This is this guy’s new job. His last job was forecasting the election for the Republicans. “No problem. They’ll show up in huge numbers…..”

    • ElderDruid
    • 14 years ago

    So 12%-14% of users went to XP and “up to” 15% will go to Vista within the first 12 months?

    A freakin’ monkey could make that kind of “prediction”.

    Now if he had said 20-25% of users, I’d say the guy has some balls (for an analyst anyway).

    • VTOL
    • 14 years ago

    When I get a DX10 8600 or mid range R600, that will be upgrade time.

    • Oldtech
    • 14 years ago

    Once the word gets out how convoluted Vista is (15 ways to shut off Vista!!) there won’t be a mad rush to change.
    There is no learning ‘curve’ for Win2K and XP users. It is a straight vertical line.
    There are no real benifits if you run it on older hardware.
    Even some of MS own software won’t run on Vista. (Mouse and Keyboard software)
    And, the excellent repair/recovery untilities in Win2K and XP are missing in Vista.

    Oldtech

    • tomjleeds
    • 14 years ago

    The guy’s obviously failed to comment on the fact that many of those upgrades will be due to the upgrade vouchers handed out with many manufacturers’ machines…if, of course, consumers bother to ‘cash them in’.

    • Snake
    • 14 years ago

    So, a fool has spoken – yet again?

    What is he to lose? I have learned to *love* “analyists” – if they are right, they get to say “See? I told you!”

    When they are wrong…does a single person hold them up to their speculation (i.e., a firing squad)?

    Nope. They have learned to make idle speculations based upon personal opinions, and if nothing happens…well, that’s life.

    He’re mine:

    Vista will have a rapid deployment for those who consider themselves techgeeks, gamers or “must-have” keep-up Joneses. They already have the hardware – or, at least, a good percentage of the hardware – necessary to run Vista “well” and /[

      • albundy
      • 14 years ago

      I couldnt agree more. but I’d have to disagree with your last statement. the xbox360’s are good for something…as a really expensive door stopper (why do ya think that they are at the front door?).

      • Inkedsphynx
      • 14 years ago

      While I agree that not everyone will upgrade to Vista immediately, I think many of your statements are pretty subjective and cannot be held in application to everyone.

      The majority of Vista sales will come from two or three sectors of people in the first few months. People who are upgrading for gaming, those who receive vouchers and see no reason not to upgrade, and new system purchasers who don’t understand the technicals behind Vista.

      The average user thinks “New OS? Great! It’s got to be better!”. Couple that with the fact that every year the amount of people purchasing new computers rises, and bam, you’ve basically instantly got the highest adoption rate of any OS to date. Simple as that.

      As to your statement that there are no “significant” upgrades to Vista…. again, subjective opinion. I think there are several. The seperation of video drivers from the OS kernal itself, as I’ve stated many times, is significant enough that I’m willing to upgrade, nevermind that I want DX10 and other features.

      Nobody who is in an informed technical position will have to pay 199 or 249 for Vista. Why? Because we’ll buy a copy of XP now and get Vista free, and save a crapload of money in the process. The people that aren’t informed enough are the ones that buy from Dell, HP, Gateway, Sony, etc etc, and they won’t know the difference.

      As for DX10 hardware, by the time Vista is out, it won’t be ONLY high-end. Mid-range refreshes on G80 are due out what… this month? R600 is due the month after next iirc, with refreshes to follow a month or two afterwards. Vista is also due the month after next for the mainstream consumer as well iirc. So that’s a moot point I’d wager, since the only people that DX10 will market to for the first 6 months it’s out are the people that already have a high-end card, or will be getting one regardless.

      As to your last paragraph…. Hi. Hello to how things work in EVERY industry in the world. Demand is high at the start. Then it tapers off and levels out, and eventually supply surpasses demand, prices drop, etc etc. Don’t know what economic system you’ve been living with, but that’s the one I see when I look around… everywhere. So I don’t see how this should be a surprise to you.

        • moose17145
        • 14 years ago

        Personally i am hoping they did some serious thread improvements compared to XP. It’s not an issue now for me since i only have a 3.2 P4 with Hyper threading, but since the next pc i build WILL have 4 cores or more the improved thread management is a must in my opinion. Like notice how games ran slower on the quad core inside XP than with the dual core at the same speed… yeaa…. that shouldn’t happen. Hopefully Vista will (for the most part) fix that… or at the VERY least make it not as bad. If i have to end up spending some bucks on an OS like that, that is the one thing that will help me determine if it is worth the extra cost.

        • IntelMole
        • 14 years ago

        y[

          • Inkedsphynx
          • 14 years ago

          I guess the question is this then:

          Is that a valid statement? That Vista is basically a window-dressed (forgive the pun) version of XP.

          I say no, but to each their own.

            • IntelMole
            • 14 years ago

            I say no too, but the guy on the street doesn’t care either way. He wants it to work, and as far as he can tell, XP does the exact same thing as Vista does, but he’s already got XP.

      • SGT Lindy
      • 14 years ago

      How hard is it to see that this will happen?

      Starting Jan 30th….all major PC makers will ship Vista in the US as the default OS.

      Around August 1st 2007 many new PC’s will be bought for the new school year (high school/college) and this will continue up to X-mas. Millions of new PC’s will be bought by Joe users and they will have Vista…and by then DX10 cards….low end….medium range and high end DX10 cards.

      Corporations are looking at Vista…..probably many that get a discount or have software insurance to Vista to solve a few problems….such as locking down the desktop finally and NOT allowing any users to be an administrator finally, super easy mass deployment with the new single workstation image and MS imgage software (buhhhh bye Ghost), and new security. Corporations dont care about, DX10 or Aero…..they want to lower the total cost of ownership. Vista will allow them to lock down their enviroment alot more than 2000/XP and will be much easier to deploy it.

        • Krogoth
        • 14 years ago

        The more important question for IT companies is cost of upgrading even worthwhile?

    • Thresher
    • 14 years ago

    He’s full of it.

    IT departments won’t roll this out for at least a year and the larger the company, the longer it will take to deploy. A company like mine would be 2+ years before adoption.

    Personal computer buyers will have no choice, for the most part, but given the large number of peripherals and programs that will just plain not work with Vista, my bet is that many of the vendors hedge their bets offering both OSes for a while. If anything, my bet is that Vista has the SLOWEST uptake of any Windows OS.

    Personally, I’ll probably run it on my MediaPC, but my gaming PC is going to be WinXP until absolutely necessary.

      • NotParker
      • 14 years ago

      /[

    • Vaughn
    • 14 years ago

    I dual boot XP and RC2.Anything on the desktop, like just chatting on msn, or surfing web pages I find Vista far more enjoyable to use. I keep XP for games and application compatibility. And will mostly continue to dual boot vista until it hits SP1. I love the speed of vista, and the other tweaks and improvements they have made. I’ve seen one BSOD cause by creatives shitty drivers, other then that its been rock solid. I’m looking forward to running it as my primary OS when its ready.

    • alex666
    • 14 years ago

    Win 2000 and XP were the first fully 32 bit MS OSes, and their stability were and speed were a great draw for a lot of people like myself who were tired ot 98se crashes and bsods. I don’t see Vista having that draw. I’ve used RC1 and currently have RC2 on a 939 system with x2 4200. Nice bells and whistles, sure, and perhaps the final version will be better, but I have found it slower, and there’s a sense of many layers of stuff, drm, security, whatever. It really feels like somebody else’s OS, not mine (I know, I know, I only have a license, but you know what I mean).

    I’ll wait for the first tweaking guides to come out and let others find out which version is the most efficient. And there will have to be plenty of dx10 programs before I upgrade. I do suspect that dx10 eventually will be very compelling, but it may take be a year or so before the programs are there.

    • Krogoth
    • 14 years ago

    (nit-pick) Vista will have the fastest OEM adoption

    • Shintai
    • 14 years ago

    Already on Vista and migrated on both my home desktop and work laptop 😀

    • LoneWolf15
    • 14 years ago

    Is he talking home adoption rates, or overall?

    I guarantee corporate adoption will be slow, and I think it may be slower than the Win2k-WinXP adoption rate has been.

    As for home users, sure, if you get a Vista coupon with a new purchase, you’ll probably upgrade. But I think the adoption rate overall of Vista will be slow. Unless someone can come out with new significant apps or tasks that can’t be done on Windows XP, I don’t see it happening. XP is reasonably stable, and (assuming you’re up-to-date on patches and have AV software) reasonably secure.

    I have nothing against Vista, having beta-tested three versions so far. I just couldn’t see significant reasons to pay to upgrade (especially when only Business and Ultimate versions support domain-based networks). XP Pro and MCE 2005 do a pretty good job.

      • mikehodges2
      • 14 years ago

      DX10. I can only imagine that will be the main reason people will upgrade. When games like Crysis, UT2007 etc come out, with significant graphical advances over the DX9 version, I’m sure many gamers will be tempted to make the switch.

      I’m thinking of putting a new system together when UT2007 comes out, and I’ll almost certainly be putting Vista on it.

        • Krogoth
        • 14 years ago

        FTW, UT2007 is DX9. 😉

          • mikehodges2
          • 14 years ago

          Oh…well – just crysis then 😉

          I’m still waiting to build until UT2007 comes out, and I’ll want it to handle DX10 games..so I’ll get vista. (and a £400 graphics card 🙁 )

    • Steel
    • 14 years ago

    Ovum? Who in their right mind calls their company “Ovum”?

      • cynan
      • 14 years ago

      Ovum – from the Latin for “egg”.

      Perhaps as in hatching/developing software? Animals that hatch from eggs first develop inside them and people who create, modify software are called “software developers” are they not?… Seems like a reasonable name for a Software company to me…

      Or is it the idea that it is also the term used to describe the singular female gamete in mamalian reproduction that makes this so distasteful to you? This same ovum is also commonly termed eggs. As in sperm + egg = zygote.

      Do you also shy away from chicken “eggs” lest they remind you of this ghastly and revolting word?

      Grow up. Really.

        • deathBOB
        • 14 years ago

        I also think it’s a pretty bad name. Maybe it would make more sense if I knew more about them, but their damn website is down.

        Anyways, I think adoption will be low, most people will need 6 months to a year just to figure out the different levels of Vista!

          • d2brothe
          • 14 years ago

          I’d agree its a bit of an odd name…not because of any of the reasons you sarcastically listed…it just doesn’t seem to have the ring to it of other trademarks. Also…companies rarely name themselves based on some abstract metaphor…

            • indeego
            • 14 years ago

            Well I’m starting initial funding for my company: /[

            • just brew it!
            • 14 years ago

            How about /[

            • cynan
            • 14 years ago

            Valid points. It is an oddish name. And I suppose companies – especially those tech related – do rarely use metaphorical names.

            My sarcasm was simply in response to the vehemence with which the original poster denounced the appropriateness of the name and that the very sight of such a name demanded the off-topic comment in the first place…

            Now, back to Vista.

            • ludi
            • 14 years ago

            You must be deep into mind reading, then. From merely reading steel’s post, I can’t tell one way or the other whether he was “vehement” or just making a wisecrack or merely thought it was odd, and said so.

        • willyolio
        • 14 years ago

        zomg newegg lol

    • d2brothe
    • 14 years ago

    y[

      • ludi
      • 14 years ago

      My pent-up demand will be tempered by the fact that whatever nice things Vista may offer, I don’t need it now, and don’t expect to need it for another year or two.

      Does this “analyst” realize that a lot of us still run W2K on all or some of our system(s)?

      • NotParker
      • 14 years ago

      /[

        • just brew it!
        • 14 years ago

        Even if it is “only” $494, most people still need to have a compelling reason to shell out the dough.

          • Disco
          • 14 years ago

          That $494 includes the computer!! I don’t see that as a barrier to adoption.

            • d2brothe
            • 14 years ago

            The barrier is the fact that, that computer is only slightly faster than mine…and 495 is a lot to spend on nothing…IE…lots of people ALREADY HAVE computers that won’t run Vista…companies won’t go buy all new computers to get vista…the fact that it won’t run on most CURRENT hardware is the barrier.

    • just brew it!
    • 14 years ago

    I don’t know if I buy the reasoning here.

    Lots of people downloading the beta does not automatically translate into lots of people who are willing to shell out big bucks for the real thing when it ships.

    How many people who receive the upgrade coupons will actually use them? Of the ones who use the coupons, how many will actually install the upgrade once they get it, and how many will just toss it on a shelf to gather dust?

    Corporate users are notoriously reluctant to upgrade — “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Even if the new version is “better”, upgrading inevitably involves a lot of hidden costs in the form of lost productivity and retraining during the transition period; any good CIO knows this, and factors those costs into the equation when deciding whether to upgrade or not. Heck, many corporate systems were still running Windows NT 4.0 until just a few years ago!

      • d2brothe
      • 14 years ago

      Heh…you beat me to the first post…but I do agree.

      • firestorm02
      • 14 years ago

      I wonder if the number of people downloading the beta is more of a reflection of the higher availability of broadband than consumer demand for a new OS. Since 2001-02 the population has increased as well so of course the rate of sales will increase relative to that.

      This article is really not much more than speculation & fluff.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This