Is Windows Vista Really a Failure?

Few can argue that Windows Vista, at the very least, didn’t really go the way Microsoft would have wanted. The initial release of of Vista was fraught with problems and the public perception hasn’t recovered since. Even while Vista is today a pretty stable operating system, it cannot shake the negative press it received in the initial days.

But, is it fair to call it a failure?

That is exactly what Jason Hiner did in a post on ZDNet entitled “Top Five Reasons Why Windows Vista Failed”. Let’s address his five reasons:

5. Apple Successfully Demonized Vista

This is true. Apple has successfully painted Windows as old and boring in the “I’m a Mac” ads. The commercials are genius, but would not have been nearly as successful if Microsoft actually had an adept marketing department. Microsoft’s public relations consistently proves to me that it is grossly out of touch with their audience. Microsoft can market to the enterprise, but they just don’t “get” the consumer mindset.

So, score one for Hiner. Apple was successful here, and the reason is because Microsoft is inept at marketing.

4. Windows XP is Too Entrenched

This is also true, however I don’t think it is “too entrenched”. Microsoft simply took too long to get Vista to market and, in the meantime, XP gained such a strong footing that it is hard to shake loose. That said, people would still switch to Vista if they felt they had a compelling reason to do so. The fact that there is no compelling reason is the true problem here, not that XP is too entrenched.

OS X Tiger was pretty entrenched before Leopard came along, yet Mac users went for the upgrade in droves. Why? Because there were compelling reasons to do so and not an endless parade of problems attached to the upgrade.

3. Vista is Too Slow

There is no doubt that Windows Vista runs slow on older hardware. Vista is very bloated and, as Hiner points out, has over 50 million lines of code. My guess is that Microsoft expected more people to just upgrade their hardware as a result of Vista and, no doubt, many did so. But, there are a lot of consumers who simply don’t want to get new machines. And for them, Vista is way too slow.

Not only that, there is a new wave of super-light, ultra mobile computers on the market which just don’t have the hardware to run Vista. These systems are pretty popular and end up running some variant of Linux or perhaps Windows XP. The market doesn’t always respond to “bigger the better” marketing. There is a large market of consumers out there who like lightweight systems and Vista simply exempts them.

2. There Wasn’t Supposed To Be a Vista

Hiner points out that Microsoft was intending to go to a subscription-based model when it released Windows XP. The idea was to get people paying a yearly fee for access to the Windows experience. This is why XP began requiring product activation, because Microsoft would disable Windows on your PC if you didn’t pay the subscription fee.

Microsoft rightly realized that this was a stupid strategy and flipped back to the shrink-wrapped software model after XP’s release. Hiner’s point, I believe, is that Microsoft’s switch mid-stream led to a delay in Windows development. XP was originally intended to be the last named version of Windows, with everything after that being incremental. Perhaps switching back to the prior model took them time to get in gear.

1. It Broke Too Much Stuff

When Vista was released, there was a barrage of complaints about people’s hardware not working. Driver incompatibilities were rampant and this is perhaps the single biggest source of damage to Vista’s reputation. Debates spread on who was to blame for this. Was this caused because Microsoft ditched the hardware abstraction layer and failed to properly work with third-party vendors? Or was it caused by vendors who dropped the ball and were simply unprepared for Vista? My view is that there is truth in both stories. Microsoft kept changing things with Vista prior to the release and therefore left an uncertain environment for vendors to invest in creating Vista drivers.

Regardless of blame, Vista did break a lot of things. The problems have been almost completely solved today, but that initial public relations nightmare has not worn off.

My Bottom Line

Calling Vista a failure depends on who’s point of view you’re looking at. From the consumer standpoint, I would say that it isn’t a failure. Today, Vista is a pretty solid operating system. Yes, it remains bloated. Yes, it fails to offer very much over Windows XP. But, it is more secure than XP. If you have the hardware for it, I see no reasons not to use Windows Vista. However, the fact that we can even ask the question on whether it is worth upgrading lends itself to the argument that it is a failure.

From Microsoft’s standpoint, it is probably a failure. Microsoft continues to parade high sales figures to prove that it is not, but Vista’s net impact on Microsoft’s reputation has been a negative. The only reason they have those Vista sales figures is because they bundle it with new PC sales. However, a respectable percentage of those new PCs end up bring downgraded to XP. So, that Vista sale is a mute point.

As far as a worthy extension of the Windows brand, I would agree that Vista failed to impress. And in that light, it is a failure.

All eyes are on Windows 7 and that, too, is testament that Vista was underwhelming.