Print 205 comment(s) - last by jonmcc33.. on May 28 at 8:09 AM

  (Source: BusinessWeek)
GM becomes the latest big business customer to consider rejecting Vista

Microsoft, typically known for a self-confident business approach has been sending clearly mixed signals on the health of Windows Vista that are perhaps indicative of the problems the OS is experiencing.  The situation, rather uncharacteristic for Microsoft, which has had a long string of successes, is best summed up in the words of its own executives.

While Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates recently described that Vista was moving units at a "rapid sales rate", Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Ballmer told executives in a recent meeting that Vista was a "work in progress".  The Microsoft designers who made Vista's unpopular User Account Control (UAC) admitted that it was designed to "annoy" the standard user.  Perhaps even more revealing, Ballmer, while praising adoption rates at MIX 08 admitted to problems with the OS stating, "we did make the choice to kind of hurt compatibility, and our customers have let us know that has been very painful."

Vista has not received a much kinder reception with customers.  While much of the blame for poor initial compatibility and problems since rests with third party hardware and PC manufacturers, Vista has been getting blasted for its problems.  Market research firm Gartner said that Windows could collapse if the trends from Vista continue.  The OS has earned Microsoft a major lawsuit for its high hardware requirements, which the plaintiffs allege Microsoft glossed over in advertising.  And fair or not, many customers have turned back to the reliable Windows XP, abandoning Vista, to the chagrin of Microsoft.

Microsoft is also experiencing severe struggles in the business sector.  According to BusinessWeek, a growing number of business are adopting a "Just Say No" policy on Vista, and are waiting until Windows 7, which should be due in 2010.  These companies mostly use XP and a major factor for many of them is that Vista is simply not lean enough for their infrastructure.

Among the latest to jump on this bandwagon is General Motors.  The automobile giant has said that it has encountered so many problems getting Vista to work on its machines that it is likely to skip the OS and wait for Windows 7.  Says
GM's Chief Systems & Technology Officer Fred Killeen, "We're considering bypassing Vista and going straight to Windows 7."

Killeen says that the high hardware requirements are the nail in the coffin.  Many of the machines that have trouble running it won't be scheduled to be replaced until 2010 to 2011.  Says Killeen, "By the time we'd replace them, Windows 7 might be ready anyway."

GM, like many larger manufacturers, is also finding that many of its smaller supporting software vendors haven't guaranteed their programs to work in Vista. 

The GM situation is indicative of the market in general.  The end picture is that Vista can run well on only a smaller subset of machines at the average tech business, and much of the software that engineers and other professionals rely on is not Vista-compatible.

Microsoft has sold 140 million copies of Vista, but has failed to match XP's success.  Further, the majority of these copies were not sold individually, but included with new computers.  While customers could in some cases elect to downgrade to Windows XP, this would cost them time and effort, making Vista acceptance for some, more acceptance out of lack of options, as opposed to acceptance based on desirability.  Also, the number includes business customers whose deals with Microsoft automatically entitle them to copies of Vista.  While all these numbers count towards sales, some of these companies have not used their copies as they currently have declined to update.

Mike Nash, a corporate vice-president at Microsoft, disputes that Vista is struggling in business.  He points out that Bank of America, Continental Airlines, Cerner, and Royal Dutch Shell have all adopted the OS.  However, he acknowledges that the OS is selling the strongest among the consumer market.  He states, "We're seeing tremendous transition to Vista, particularly in the consumer space."

Some companies are opting to buy Vista merely to get XP licenses -- among these is Alaska Airlines.  Its 2,000 office workers will be using Windows XP machines, which will be replaced with XP downgraded Vista machines as necessary.  The company’s Senior Vice-President and CIO, Bob Reeder, states, "There's no business value in us continuing to chase that upgrade cycle."

In a recent market analysis it was found that at the end of last year Vista only held a 6.3 percent business sector OS market share, while competitor Apple's OS X held 4.2 percent.  This is not so much a comment on Apple's success as both shares are relatively trivial.  Rather it is more a comment on Vista's struggles in the business community.

The result has led to financial losses for Microsoft.  Sales of its desktop Windows group, its most profitable, slumped 2 percent in Q1 2008.  This led to an 11 percent fall in profits for the quarter.  This spells trouble for Microsoft, which has sustained many of its fledgling offerings, such as the Zune, MSN online offerings, and Xbox 360 through periods of lack of profitability with its Windows profits.

Analysts indicate that Microsoft has two options.  One is to try to improve its profitability in other market sectors, such as its online offerings.  This is tough challenge as Microsoft has struggled online to develop a good strategy.  While Microsoft has recently stated that it feels that it can achieve "independent" success, it has been left playing catch-up to Google for the last couple years.

The other big hope for Microsoft's continued success is for a turn-around with Windows 7.  Early reports on Windows 7 indicate that it's shaping up nicely.  It is supposed to be much leaner than Vista, which should win back some customers. 

While Microsoft is such a sales juggernaut that it can weather below average sales, it always strives for excellence, which has earned it its market position.  Thus it should be interesting to see how Microsoft reacts to the problems with Vista and the poor adoption in the business community.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

MS Neglects Businesses
By mmntech on 5/14/2008 12:04:03 PM , Rating: 5
Lets open the floor to the fanboys saying that this is FUD and Vista rox.

Microsoft made a major mistake by not releasing a lean version like they did with Windows 2000. The business community is not like consumers who buy new systems every two years. They need backwards compatibility and low overhead. They're not going to sped millions replacing thousands of computers every time a new OS comes out. The problem for Microsoft is that businesses still form the core of their market, and they chose to ignore their needs.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By virtuallyserved on 5/14/2008 12:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with these users is exactly as you state it- they're not like the business world. Vista is not even ideal for most end users/consumers as they don't have enough technical knowledge to be able to work through issues such as incompatible drivers, performance tuning for a specific class of system, etc.

Sure there's the idea that you won't "be on the cutting edge" and that Vista offers updated hardware compatibility (supposedly). But this is exactly why this OS should be left to power users and individuals who want to play DX10 games for the time being.

Right now Vista SP1 is just getting around to solving activation management issues for corporate IT infrastructures. But even with this solution, getting SP1 properly deployed can be a headache with the need to update drivers/uninstall drivers to comply with the availability conditions Microsoft has placed on SP1.

I'm not even impressed with XP SP3. Overall, it seems that the code that Microsoft has produced in the Vista era is very underwhelming.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By TheDoc9 on 5/14/2008 2:49:28 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps they can throw more skilled workers from overseas at the problem. As you can see, it's worked out well so far.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Samus on 5/14/2008 7:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic, but either meaning is actually funny

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By jonmcc33 on 5/14/2008 12:30:39 PM , Rating: 5
I don't see why this isn't a FUD type of article. Jason Mick pointed out every negative he could and not a single positive. That's a pessimistic view and designed to spread FUD.

Windows Vista doesn't really use up that many resources and it's not hard to upgrade if you really have that old of computer systems. If you have something that old anyway there's a good chance that it's no longer under any warranty. That means if your system dies it doesn't have Windows XP on it anymore anyway and you lose productivity.

In regards to "backwards compatibility" you need to understand that changes were made to make the OS more secure. If this breaks compatibility with older software then so be it.

The biggest need - with all the malware, viruses, trojans, spyware out there - is more security. Without moving totally to Linux I'd say Windows Vista is the best alternative. We already know that Mac sure isn't.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By 306maxi on 5/14/2008 1:53:56 PM , Rating: 5
I bet if OSX broke someone's old software that would be a feature that Supreme Overlord Jobs would advertise as being the best thing since sliced bread. But when it happens with Windows it's a bad thing.

Rule of thumb when Jason Mick reports on his bog.
Problem with OSX = Feature
Problem with Windows = Issue intentionally written into Windows so that Bill Gates can get more of your moneys and can devote it to evil monkey research which means Bill is even closer to setting off an unholy army of monkeys upon us to enslave us and force us to do Bill's bidding.

Or something like that.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By MonkeyPaw on 5/14/2008 8:18:13 PM , Rating: 5
My (medium-sized) company skipped Win2K completely and jumped from NT4 to WinXP. According to this article, that must make Win2k garbage. We also just upgraded to IE7 and Office 2003 last month, and those aren't exactly new.

The point is, major software migrations for large companies is a huge deal, and it costs lots of time and money (our migration to XP took 3 months to roll out). Big companies have old PCs, old software, and lots of idiot users who will immediately panic as soon as their start button changes. To just jump to the next OS like a home user does simply doesn't happen. Software has to be tested, hardware has to be qualified, and lots and lots of money has to be spent. Just think how much time and money this will cost a company that has 1,000-10,000 PCs. That's why it's not at all uncommon to skip a software generation whenever possible.

Anyone who thinks that decisions like these are made based on anything other than cost-benefit just don't know any better.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By borismkv on 5/14/2008 10:35:48 PM , Rating: 5
Mick wrote this? Oh...pfft *leaves and ignores everything he just read*

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By phusg on 5/15/08, Rating: -1
RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By William Gaatjes on 5/15/2008 6:53:48 AM , Rating: 2
The point is that Apple did a smarter job. They made a new api but still support the old api next to it. They serious promote the use of their new api and because it is faster better , new important features they have something to sell to their customers. Something the customers want to use cause the customers see possibilities to make money. The old api because of this will be less and less used.

Microsoft made a new api but it seems it is not stable enough and does not has features enough to justify. There is your problem. Companies want backward compatability cause their bussiness depends on it.

With home customers it is less of a problem using for example dual boot for a while to solve compatability problems.

Companies have no need for heavenly drm-ed operating systems. In Companies computers are used get the work done, not for entertainement.

But afcourse everybody knows that a hypothetical vista system with a lot less drm and without huge memory requirements would be faster and thus would find it's way very fast to the home user.

Backwards compatability is what made microsoft big.
And backwards compatability is what holding them back.

I am sure that if you gave them the chance to start with a clean os and with a clean api they would so today.
The whole win32 api is maybe too huge with too many quirks too emulate properly or they would have already done that.
Emulating also solves security problems if done properly.

There are many reason why vista is what vista is.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By phxfreddy on 5/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By SeanMI on 5/14/2008 2:35:27 PM , Rating: 5
What do you NEED? I don't know what YOU specifically need, but here are plenty of things other people/corporations need...

Bitlocker Drive Encryption

DirectX 10

Client Side Extensions for Group Policy Preferences (which are awesome BTW)

Client side caching (offline files) which utilizes bitmap differential transfers (MUCH faster client to server sync times)

A more secure crypto algorithm for the secure channel established with 2K8 servers.

MUCH improved event logging including CAPI2, group policy, winlogon, etc.

Now, minus DirectX 10, I've specifically mentioned items that would appeal to the corporate customer. I've also tried to stay away from controversial features like UAC. I can continue listing things if you'd like. Oh, and you can freakin disable AERO!!!

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By JAB on 5/15/2008 2:01:11 AM , Rating: 2
Good post. There are actually tons of good features on Vista that you never hear about. The cost vs benefit it a tough one for vista though. We just replaced some the computers with Pentium II and III CPU's in mission critical jobs. We still have some running because it can cost 60,000 dollars to replace each one due to all the validation and license fees.
The advanced features in XP are not properly used yet I dont see them being well used in out org before Vista is replaced.

The vast majority of our computers are Core 2 Duo with at least 2 GB of RAM bought this year but others cant be replaced for any reason no matter how old and overstretched.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By robinthakur on 5/15/2008 8:35:38 AM , Rating: 2
Bitlocker Drive Encryption = third party tool can perform this on Xp

DirectX10 = You specifically don't mention this in the corporate space, but even in the consumer space its been a bit of a flop up to this point.

GPO Client extensions = Agreed important feature, but only really improves manageability, not a business driving feature.

differential caching = Only really noticeabcle if you work offline for extended period of time (i.e. executives) most have network connectivity most of the time.

More secure crypto Algorithm... = This can always be retrofitted and I can't think of anybody who would base their expansion plans on this. Server 2k8 and client pc's generally operate on a secured corporate network anyway with IDS's, firewalls and the whole shabang. This is unlikely to affect the godawful problem where accounts lose their secure channel in AD.

Event logging = Yes agreed this feature is much improved. Is it easy to sell this feature? No.

I'd also add, ease of deployment (on multiple DVD's for us when not using network install, sheesh!) and Office 2k7/SharePoint/Server08 integration to the list.

While these items do appeal to corporate environments, I wouldn't think that they are killer apps if their XP environment is working fine. They are very difficult to build a business case around unless its corporate policy that you have a set upgrade path. The incompatibilities with older apps is a very important stumbling block as very many orgs use older, maybe bespoke apps, and don't operate in the MS utopia. Many companies follow way behind the technology curve also and are displeased with MS's policy of having to reactivate every 180 days.

My company was in a fairly late phase of planning the Vista deployment then read all the recent hoohah about Windows 7 (Made worse by MS) and decided to shelve it permanently. We are rolling out Office 2k7 though. I wish I could say that this is an abberation, but actually I know a number of large co.s doing the same. Whilst people in general are no more likely now to serivously consider Linux or OSX (sorry fellow apple fans) for client machines, one of the most telling things is that MS looks a bit shaky in its resolve these days without Bill at the helm being highly visible like he used to be. This only engenders its clients to feel slightly uneasy and hesitant when it comes to upgrade...

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By SeanMI on 5/15/2008 10:08:04 AM , Rating: 3
Bitlocker - A third party tool can do almost anything...That doesn't make Bitlocker any less of an important feature. The fact that it integrates with AD and allows you to delegate recovery permissions to members of a help desk is a huge selling feature.

GPO CSEs - Woah...improving manageability isn't a business driving feature? Huh? Isn't that what INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY is all about? Maintaining and managing information?

CSC - Scenario: You're an exec on an extended flight and you're accessing some 300MB of Excel files using the client side cache while you're not connected to the network. When you get to your destination, you VPN in, start to sync files, and realize CRAP! This is going to take forever! Not if you're using Vista! Only the edited bits will be copied to the server. You just saved your Exec 3 hours (oh, and you pay him $150 an hour...I think you just paid for his copy of Vista).

Event Logging - I'm no sales guy, but I'm glad you agree it's a much improved feature. Cause it is :)

And yes, you're correct about the integration with the products you mentioned. As a matter of fact, I was assuming Server 2K8 is in use because of the cryptographic algorithm I mentioned as well as the GPP. In the end, I think Server 2K8 will cause more companies to upgrade to Vista. It was like this with XP as well. As soon as 2K3 hit BAM, XP everywhere. 2K8 has been publicly available since what, March? Give it until the end of this year, and let's have this discussion again :)

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By jonmcc33 on 5/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By SiN on 5/14/2008 3:49:42 PM , Rating: 3
Flexability, Support, Userfriendlyness, Productivity.
Not that Linux doesn't have flexability, support, usrfriendlyness, productivity. But you will find Windows has executed it better. Untill linux can execute it better most people will choose windows.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By jonmcc33 on 5/15/2008 7:13:14 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying that Linux is better over Windows by any means. I gave up using Linux myself, just not as easy as using Windows.

My point is why would someone even ask why you need Windows Vista over Windows XP? Haha, people rated my comment down. They must have misunderstood it.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By bryanW1995 on 5/14/2008 11:05:05 PM , Rating: 1
user account control, how can you live without that!!!???

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Belard on 5/15/2008 4:45:19 AM , Rating: 2
Duh... Vista has the really cool animation to watch while it unpacks ZIP files or moves them across USB.

I love this video:

But both PCs aren't the same. The Vista system is on a faster core2 tech(1gb) vs a single core P4 for XP (512mb).

That why this is vista:

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By boogle on 5/15/2008 5:49:43 AM , Rating: 2
There's a bug in Vista with regards to zip file handling which is partially fixed in SP1.

Either way XP's zip functionality is way, way slower than WinRAR. So would it be a fair test to compare WinRAR on Vista with the built-in util in XP?

Vista has it's issues, but cherry picking certain advantages / disadvantages does nothing for anyone. If you go down that route, even OS/2 or DOS can look amazing.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Griffinhart on 5/15/2008 3:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
That doesn't mean Vista is broken, that means the included Zip extractor is bad. The included Zip extractor isn't very good at all. But, I use 7-Zip. It's free too.

I just did my own test. I took a zip file that was 22mb zipped and 56Mb with 1400 files unzipped. Using Vista's extraction tool it took about 20 seconds to extract the files. Using 7-zip it took about 3 seconds to do the same.

Considering that you need a 3rd party zip utility if you want to create zip files anyway I don't see why this is so damning. Oooh noooes, I need to use a free zip utility.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By bangmal on 5/17/2008 2:54:49 AM , Rating: 2
Here is a nice feature:

The volume mixer allows you to control the sound source individually, for example, when I am browsing and listening my favorite songs, there are usually some annoying pages with sounds that you do not know how to turn off. Vista allows you to mute the noise on the site but not your music.

Under XP you can only either turn off everything or suck it.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By OxBow on 5/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By mondo1234 on 5/14/2008 2:52:45 PM , Rating: 1
Vista sales only accounted for 40% of new computer sales. Hardly Stellar. I like how one day MS says Vista sales stink, then other days, Vista is selling "Briskly". If they are selling as great as MS says, why discontinue XP? Its just free money for MS.

Bottom Line:

Friends dont let Friends use Vista

OK, you can mark me down now!

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By bangmal on 5/17/2008 3:04:19 AM , Rating: 2
If they are selling as bad as you haters say, why discontinue XP? Its just free money for MS.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By jonmcc33 on 5/14/2008 3:28:43 PM , Rating: 5
Security improvements a laughing stock? Is that why hackers couldn't get into it no matter how hard they tried until they exploited some Flash vulnerability?

Sorry, Windows Vista is far more secure and safe to use than Windows XP is.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Sazar on 5/14/2008 5:20:47 PM , Rating: 4
This same vulnerability is available in any system with that application installed. Had the "hackers" decided to go into the Ubuntu system with the same hole, they would have been able to.

The operating system has been out for almost 2 years since the early beta days and I have yet to hear of a mass exploit available for the OS, only about random 3'rd party applications. I think that speaks volumes for Vista and it's security.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By mars777 on 5/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By jonmcc33 on 5/14/2008 7:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
No, that was not when Vista was brand new.,143962-pg,1/arti...

It was in March and the Windows Vista system had SP1 installed on it. It took a lot of help and the person that did it, Shane Macaulay, has previously worked for Microsoft.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By bangmal on 5/17/2008 3:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
You newbies should learn that SP is not something magical, it is merely a package including the previous updates + some more new updates. Its purpose is to help the new adopters or even better for the OEMs to ship the new computer pre-SPed. you understand?

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By jonmcc33 on 5/28/2008 8:09:31 AM , Rating: 2
Newbies? Service Pack 1 for Vista was a lot more than previous patches/updates rolled into one. Perhaps you need to read up a learn a thing or two...especially before you go calling someone else a "newbie"? You understand?

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Clauzii on 5/14/2008 6:29:23 PM , Rating: 3
And that totally depends on the type of protection the user adds to it (firewall, antivirus, spam/spy-killers).

The biggest threat to a system is the one in front of the keyboard.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By MRwizard on 5/14/2008 9:19:33 PM , Rating: 1
'140,000,000 ' And how many of those are downgrades?

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By The0ne on 5/14/2008 2:28:55 PM , Rating: 4
So you're saying companies with thousands of employees should implement Vista, upgrade their hardware and software to get it to work, spend thousands of dollars to support it and gain how much from using it? Do you realize how much money this will cost? And it's not a good idea to always be getting the latest, not unless parts are going EOL as it were with the pentium CPUs back then.

And what about the support cost? You have the training, the increase in manpower and most likely decrease if calls settled down, 3rd party softare updates, licenese udpates to have the software work with vista, etc.

I'm sorry you don't grasp all the aspect of deploying something so minor as Vista on a PC. It's definitely not cheap.

From this standpoint, what are the goods from it? Prettier desktop? More secure (compared to XP)? Easier migration? Less desktop support? The later, in my opinion, is not so easy. I'm an advance PC user and I find myself climbing a steep learning curve for both Vista Ultimate and Office 2007. Too me minutes for all other OSs, excecpt linus, but Vista and Office is a pain for me. Granted some of you have a easier time grasping the changes.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By jonmcc33 on 5/15/2008 7:20:40 AM , Rating: 2
Companies? No, I wouldn't target them specifically although I know a lot of additional Group Policy options were added to Vista. I'm just not familiar with all of them ATM.

You completely misunderstand where I come from if you don't think I grasp the big picture when it comes to an OS upgrade. I was in the USAF when we upgraded thousands of computers from Windows 2000 Pro to Windows XP Pro. I was also there for the upgrade from Windows NT to Windows 2000 Pro. I am well aware of what it takes.

My point is that the FUD that is used as a reason not to switch is rather moot. It's the same FUD used in articles like the one we're talking about here.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By jonmcc33 on 5/14/2008 3:38:36 PM , Rating: 5
True, but they were all of the negative facts. Not pointing out positive facts shows that someone wants to concentrate only on the negative in order to spread FUD.

It would be the same if all I did was point out all the negatives of any Linux distro and not pointing out a single one of the well known positives.

The best alternative to protect yourself is to be a competent PC user? Sorry, the only way to protect yourself without putting up massive barriers is to not connect your computer to the internet. The Windows XP firewall offers zero outbound protection. Spybot is a joke. What, no AV protection?

Besides the fact that Windows Vista (advanced) Firewall offers the ability to control outbound protection you also have User Access Control, which is far more than just clicking a button.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By robinthakur on 5/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By wallijonn on 5/14/2008 3:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
In regards to "backwards compatibility" you need to understand that changes were made to make the OS more secure. If this breaks compatibility with older software then so be it.

Businesses use Proxy / Firewall servers along with email servers which scan for viruses, so security built into an OS, in a business environment, is moot, pointless and useless.

likewise, if security is paramount within the Vista OS, then it may be better if I set up my own Linux based proxy/firewall/virus scanner box and then connected my XP machine to it. I figure any single core P3 or P4 could run those apps under Linux with a gig of mem. Which is exactly the types of machines that people are throwing away.

Exactly how much is an Enterprise OEM Vista license? Figure the big corporations have a 50,000 user base. Figure a 3 year hardware refresh cycle. Since Vista has been out a year, figure that many will need to refresh in two years. That's just about when W7 comes out. So why not wait? If W7 guarantees downward compatibility then it becomes a no-brainer. If it doesn't, then they can leap into 64 bit apps and fore go the headaches (although it may very well be 'headaches delayed'). .

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By bodar on 5/14/2008 3:54:23 PM , Rating: 4
Businesses use Proxy / Firewall servers along with email servers which scan for viruses, so security built into an OS, in a business environment, is moot, pointless and useless.

Crustacean security is not real security. At all. You fail.

Here's an article, while I go back to work:

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2008 4:29:08 PM , Rating: 1
likewise, if security is paramount within the Vista OS, then it may be better if I set up my own Linux based proxy/firewall/virus scanner box and then connected my XP machine to it. I figure any single core P3 or P4 could run those apps under Linux with a gig of mem. Which is exactly the types of machines that people are throwing away.

Hell a p3 or p4 ? Check out Clark Connect software. Its a streamlined Linux security router/firewall distro that runs great on just about anything. I bought a Pentium I shitbox at a garage sale and have been running my home network off it ever since.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2008 5:11:28 PM , Rating: 2
lol I got down rated for telling someone about Linux firwall software ?

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By omnicronx on 5/14/2008 5:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
you probably got rated down for using the word shitbox

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By omnicronx on 5/14/2008 5:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
yep definatly the reason..

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Clauzii on 5/14/2008 6:34:52 PM , Rating: 2

I once used some f-word, and the instant I posted, it got rated down (5 sek. MAX!!)

Ouch ;)

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By killerb255 on 5/21/2008 12:30:18 AM , Rating: 2
I think profanity automatically rates the post as default minus 1 (usually 1 instead of 2)

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By darkpaw on 5/14/2008 5:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
It seems any post with an explative is automatically rated 1 after it is first posted.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2008 5:29:13 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, oh well my bad. If there was an edit feature *cough* I could fix that :)

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By michael67 on 5/14/2008 6:55:28 PM , Rating: 1
I don't see why this isn't a FUD type of article. Jason Mick pointed out every negative he could and not a single positive. That's a pessimistic view and designed to spread FUD.

I don't read any FUD in the article but but a statement of the facts as businesses look at Vista.
2 friends ask me to come along to a technet meeting for the roll out of win server 2008 whits is a interesting product.

During the meeting ware a bout 800 net-admins ware present the speaker talked for about a half hour a bout all the nice things of Vista working together whit win2008, when he asked how many had switched over to Vista "20 sec of complete silents" after that he ask how many ware planing to roll out Vista there was a other 20 sec of dead silents, then the whole room laughing because the speaker realized that he just wasted 30 min on something no one wants and Vista is really seen as a lemon no one wants.

Every net-admin i have spoken to is saying the same thing, Vista is just to bloated, and it got a to high learning curve "Dude ware is my uhhhh..... everything"

MS just got it wrong whit Vista and ware XP is still seen as the best OS for the office. its also a testimony how well XP was designed.

In regards to "backwards compatibility" you need to understand that changes were made to make the OS more secure. If this breaks compatibility with older software then so be it.

A security system that's so annoying that lots of people turn it of because they feel it makes there system unworkable yeah that really makes your PC a lot saver.

I my self also tried out Vista and cant find any advances over XP that justify upgrading to it and found that my PC felt mouths slugyer then when i was running XP so i downgraded, last time i did that was whit win ME and tell me that one also didn't suck.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By jonmcc33 on 5/15/2008 7:37:16 AM , Rating: 2
its also a testimony how well XP was designed.

I'd hope after 7 years that an OS would be well designed. Funny that it doesn't stop Microsoft from continuing to release patches to fix it.

A security system that's so annoying that lots of people turn it of because they feel it makes there system unworkable yeah that really makes your PC a lot saver.

More people leave it on than you think. Most people won't get UAC notifications unless they are installing software. It's still there to protect your computer system, which is more than what Windows XP has. I leave it on myself as well.

Funny, Apple used the same fear tactic towards UAC in one of their ads. It's like people hate the extra measure that it takes to be safe and secure. Apple can claim a more secure OS but hackers targeted Leopard and broke into it before they did Windows Vista.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By calaverasgrandes on 5/14/2008 9:05:02 PM , Rating: 2
In the last year, I think the amount of core duo or better desktops I have seen in corporate environments is about 5%-10%. most of them are Pentium D or older. A lot of PIII's are still out there! Considering that your average user doesnt do anything more taxing than check email and maybe run a few office apps, there hasnt been a big need for desktop processing power until Vista came along. the only places I have seen users (successfully)demanding more CPU muscle is over at the bio-pharms. One company I know of just chucked a bunch of perfectly good core 2 duos in favor of Intel quad cores.

Another factor to take into account is IT support for vista. Besides getting all your desktops up to snuff to run vista, you are certainly going to need to hire a few more guys to deal with all the problems the users will have adjusting.

Besides security, what other compelling arguement does vista have? Its one of the same reasons Apple has made no inroads in the corporate world. Why change whats working? XP SP2 works. And when it doesnt most of its pitfalls are well documented.

Honestly XP64 should have been given more of a chance, than it would have helped to transition to vista better.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By BansheeX on 5/14/2008 12:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. There is too much pointless visual fluff driving up requirements. WTH does a 2d interface need 3d acceleration for? Nothing new and useful, just weird window manipulation to play with. When Windows XP came out, the filesearch feature included an animated dog that jumped around for a few seconds before and after a search. MS intentionally bloats stuff up for no reason other than to force obsolescence and make the new product "different" and more marketable. A new Word processor to buy every few years? That's a ridiculous interval for such an application and anyone with a brain knows it. I rest my case.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By BansheeX on 5/14/2008 12:42:01 PM , Rating: 1
And before some MS nut attacks me, I'm not suggesting that MS should never release a new product and only update old products. I'm simply saying that they choose overly aggressive intervals because of their dominant position in the market. It's a way to make some extra money. This is quite clear when you look at the history of their OS updates. Everyone knows how stupid ME was, but anything they release is sure to sell so why not? Since they're not likely to gain any competitors anytime soon, we simply need to identify when this occurs, rather than take up the sword like a raving fanboy and defend everything.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By JustTom on 5/14/2008 2:03:16 PM , Rating: 4
It was over 5 years between XP an Vista, hardly a short product lifespan for a software product.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Shark Tek on 5/14/2008 12:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
I remember this MS GEEK showing how great are the effects that came with Vista. But I almost make him cry when I show him Fusion installed in a OpenSuse 10.2 64 bit O/S.

And the funniest thing is that it runs smoother in low end hardware using more complex animations.

MS you just Fail with Vista. I hope that they can get on track with Windows 7 and make a more stable and productive O/S.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Belard on 5/15/2008 4:56:13 AM , Rating: 1
There is nothing wrong with 3D... if done right. There are things you can do with Linux with its 3D desktop that smoke vista and don't require a top end PC to do it. look it up on youtube... Like this one: (FF to 2mins for Linux).

I used to have a tinny 80k thingy that made Windows95 have a 3D desktop "space". And there are add-ons to make XP look like Vista that are only a few megs big... much smaller than XP's 2GB foot print to Vista's 10GB room size bloat.

Since Vista is just a skin job & high-res backgrounds... that all it really should have been... no super DRM crap, etc. DX10, yes to help games for desktop computers... and have XP skins too, oh yeah, bug fixes and the Search box in the start button. That's it. Then Vista would have been 99.99% compatible with the hardware and software out there.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By jonmcc33 on 5/15/2008 1:16:45 PM , Rating: 5
3D pales in comparison to multiple monitors. I've found no use for the 3D cube and every use for multiple monitors.

Vista is far more than a pretty skin, DX10, bug fixes and a Search box in the start button I'm affraid.

Vista is not 10GB. It's 7GB after install and half of that is for backwards compatibility (when you run apps in Compatibility Mode) so it's really a 3-4GB install which isn't bloated by any means even on an 80GB hard drive.

Truth. Kills FUD dead.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By chromoplastic on 5/14/2008 12:56:27 PM , Rating: 3
The problem with XP is that it's the most popular OS ever. And after SP2 is a good one too. Stable and, with the power of todays hardware, very, very fast.

For a better OS MS should break compatibility, because most of Windows bloat is to maintain compatibility with every hardware and most of well written software. Apple did it... twice! When they changed to PowerPC and recently when they changed to Intel's x86. And if the first time it was a nightmare for Apple users, this time it was less problematic because Apple used Roseta. I think MS should go this way, trough virtualization tools that everybody use today (look at now VMware's Thinstall), and that even MS has (Virtual PC).

And let's face it, why should a company that uses Office, some ERP or something like that, needs to upgrade from XP?

I use Vista 64 from the beginning and after some problems with nVidia drivers it runs rock solid, but i have to admit that it doesn't do anything that XP wouldn't do.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By crimson117 on 5/14/2008 1:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
I use Vista 64 from the beginning ...but i have to admit that it doesn't do anything that XP wouldn't do.

It runs DirectX 10, for what it's worth.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2008 3:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
For a better OS MS should break compatibility...

Massive compatibility is one of the main selling points of Windows. I can't agree that this would be a good idea for Microsoft. Its not working out so good for Apple is it ?

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By chromoplastic on 5/14/2008 5:29:31 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe i didn't explain myself clearly. I mean that MS should drop compatibility natively in Windows, but implement it via some sort of emulation or virtualization. Apple did it with some success with Roseta and even Sony is doing it by emulating PS2 in PS3 by software.

More simply they could include XP inside Vista or something. I run some command-line utilities in XP Fundamentals for Legacy PCs inside VMWare and it runs 100%, so MS can do it even better because they own the code.

It could be some sort of additional Vista version.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Locutus465 on 5/14/2008 1:37:04 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps I'm missing something? Windows 2000 was released in a "Proffesional" i.e. workstation version and a host of different server versions up to "data center" designed to meet differing needs.

Technically, windows XP had the same kinds of releases though starting with XP the server varients no longer shared the marketing name with the workstation varient, i.e. Windows Server 2003 v. Windows XP Professional.

Vista is no different here, if you want to run vista as a workstation in a corperate setting then you run Windows Vista Business (the most basic version) or Windows Vista Enterprise (more feature rich). If you want to run it on a server then use Windows Server 2008.

Did I miss something? Seems to me like the vista line actually offers more choice meaning what your talking about probably isn't one of the reasons why business are skipping vista.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By bangmal on 5/17/2008 3:19:54 AM , Rating: 2
You are right. Win2000 are meant for workstation/servers.
Vista for home users. vista' variant is windows server 2008.

Those ignorant hating boys keep making me laugh

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By onwisconsin on 5/14/2008 2:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
I like Vista...only for my PERSONAL use. It will not be practical for business until Windows 7 comes out, so it is only logical not to get Vista. No way it is a big enough upgrade from XP to be practical to upgrade, even if they are buying new machines.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By PrezWeezy on 5/14/2008 3:01:55 PM , Rating: 5
I'll jump up and say it's FUD. 90% of the Vista "problems" are because of the media. I work in the IT business sector. My company supports over 50 small businesses with 50-60 PC's each. We have been phasing in Vista as we buy new PC's and haven't seen any problems at all. UPS doesn't work on Vista, which is totally the fault of UPS and NOT MS. But I can't think of a single other program that doesn't work on Vista that we haven't been able to solve.

Let's face it people, Vista is not the problem. When Windows 3.1 came out the hardware requirements were enormous. And then again with 95 because you could actually do multi-tasking. Again in 2000 you had to have better hardware to actually run it well, and XP also bumped up the video need. Vista is no different than any of the other OS's that have come out and I firmly believe that it is the media, and not MS that are the problem here. They have to sensationalize everything, otherwise people wont watch.

There is a basic Vista install that doesn't take much memory, video, or CPU. In fact Vista makes MUCH better use of the memory you have. The reality is that where XP would try to put as little as possible in memory, where Vista loads as much as it can and then releases it when it's needed.

As for UAC, the last version of RedHat that I used about 4 or 5 years ago had a version of UAC that popped up and asked for a password EVERY time you needed Root authority. No different than what Vista does, and yet everyone keeps saying that they should move to Linux. Why? What is the advantage? Anything you save on software you spend on maintenance, not to mention it is extremely unsecure OOB.

I'm sick and tired of people blasting MS for "screwing up Vista" when I support a very large number of desktops and I see no issues with it that weren't there with any other upgrade, or are not the fault of a 3rd party. Stop blaming Microsoft, they don't control everything. All they can do is put out the best product they can make and then it's out of their hands. Anyone who supports as many PC's as my company is welcome to tell me I'm wrong, but if you are some yahoo out there who has just been reading the press releases and hasn't actually dug into Vista, keep your comments to yourself.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By nitrous9200 on 5/14/2008 5:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
I guess that's common among Linux distros, I installed Ubuntu just to try it out and EVERYTHING needs a password: updating, changing settings, even changing the time.
Plus you can't get everyone to like Vista, but I know a bunch of people who have it and love it. I installed the betas on my lowly desktop and it ran great. But some people just like to bash Microsoft for whatever reasons they can think of.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Hoser McMoose on 5/14/2008 11:46:42 PM , Rating: 3
It's not just Linux, OS X uses almost the exact same thing as UAC too. It's simply a good idea from a security standpoint. The only thing wrong with UAC is that Microsoft SHOULD have done it years ago!

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By jonmcc33 on 5/16/2008 7:28:50 AM , Rating: 2
Then why does Apple bash Microsoft's implementation of it in their ads? The good part is that it's actually beyond just a prompt for admin authentication. There's a lot more to UAC than most people realize.

If anything, Microsoft should make the prompt less intrusive. No need to darken the background and whatnot. Just come up with the UAC prompt. IIRC, SP1 for Vista has helped tone down the many extra UAC prompts as well.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By The0ne on 5/14/2008 6:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
I don't disagree that the media is part of the blame for some users bashing Vista. I like Vista but it's not a worthwhile upgrade for me from XP nor is it a wise decision for most of the people/clients I advise to wait.

I can't see how one can make comparisons to old technology and software. Back in 3.1 and 95 you have hardware that wasn't increasing at a rate that we have been seeing. We're seeing CPU speed jumps in 33Mhz. Memory requirements were low, software programming were efficient due to the limitations of what was available (hard drive size, floppys, etc.). And Windows95 can't do multitasking. Windows can't do multitasking at all..or rather can't do it very well. You really have to have utilize multitasking capabilities to really appreciate how beneficial it is. Imagines rendering in the background, playing music, downloading, multiple apps open and all that while you're playing a game that runs just fine and dandy with no slowdown. Now take that a bit further and imagine REXX scripting and you have yourself one powerful multitasking machine dated so many years ago ;_; Multitasking is truly beautiful when done right and astounding to programmed, I assumed the later :) I've only done parallel assembly programming for microboards.

And it's great that your company has successfully supported other small businesses in their Vista migration but supporting is just a part of the deployment process, in which case is not all the cost nor the hassle. And if you haven't seen "any problems at all." I think you're lying. No OS is perfect and since most of the users are regular users one will eventually do something no one would have ever thought possible.

I don't even want to go into the advantages/disadvantages of Vista/XP. The article is about deployment, abit more FUD I agree. Still, the point for large companies is whether or not it's a cost effective decision.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By PrezWeezy on 5/15/2008 2:53:04 AM , Rating: 2
To start, I would agree that "multitasking" isn't a reality yet. In fact the CPU switches back and forth between programs. That being the case I would say that my point is made even stronger by the leaps and bounds that hardware is taking. Vista came out with large demands because it was known that it would be a very short time before those requirements were not only standard for new PC's (which they are now) but that hardware wouldn't take long to become affordable.

I also agree very much that upgrading from XP to Vista doesn't make any sense. However, for buying a new PC I wouldn't recomend anyone stick with old technology. If you are buying a new PC, get Vista with it.

As far as my not having "any" problems, I suppose that was written poorly. I have not had any problems that are out of the ordinary. I certainly don't have any more problems than I've had with XP. Hope that clears up what I meant a bit.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By jonmcc33 on 5/16/2008 7:35:18 AM , Rating: 2
Windows can't do multitasking at all..or rather can't do it very well. You really have to have utilize multitasking capabilities to really appreciate how beneficial it is. Imagines rendering in the background, playing music, downloading, multiple apps open and all that while you're playing a game that runs just fine and dandy with no slowdown.

Windows Vista supports SMP and Windows has supported it since Windows 2000 Pro. Get a quad core processor and watch Windows multitask like crazy for you. You can even assign an affinity to processes. There is a limited number of physical sockets that it can support but there is no limit to the number of cores (processors).

I assume that you want the OS to control it all and automatically balance the CPU load over the applications though, correct?

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By chick0n on 5/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By ranger203 on 5/14/2008 5:31:33 PM , Rating: 2
GM, like many larger manufacturers, is also finding that many of its smaller supporting software vendors haven't guaranteed their programs to work in Vista.

This is exatcly why I cannot put Vista in with many of my clients. Some run $$$ custom software designed in ~2004, that worked on Win2k and all XP including SP3, but not Vista or SP1. I use Vista @ home, but then again, to buy the newest AV and a few other titles to support Vista isn't a big deal for 1 PC.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By encryptkeeper on 5/15/2008 9:17:54 AM , Rating: 1
Anyone who says this article is just FUD needs to remember: The advantages of Vista really don't matter on the corporate level because they often can't get it to work with their software or hardware. Think about it, if I had a car that went 300 mph safely, got 90 miles to the gallon, was virtually dent proof, nearly invulnerable to steal or vandalize, BUT I could only drive it on 5% of the roads in America, it'd be pretty useless to me wouldn't it?

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By Hiawa23 on 5/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By masa77 on 5/16/2008 11:23:45 AM , Rating: 2
Business customers want a solution that works and results in minimal downtime. Who cares about 1000 features, when you only use a handful of them and those you do need must work flawlessly. What good are all the bells and whistles if core functionality is worse than the previous o/s? I pulled Vista out of our environment because it's simply too much hassle to deal with all the bugs - and there are a lot of them. XP was stable, so it's rather pointless to 'downgrade' to Vista and waste valuable time on a product that gives the business consumer nothing in return.

RE: MS Neglects Businesses
By kmmatney on 5/19/2008 6:25:39 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. I just went throught the painful process of getting one of my programs Vista compatible, only to find that one of my third party support programs won't be Vista compatible until the end of 2008. After that I'll need another few months to qualify things, so realistically I'm about a year away from releasing a Vista compatible version. I'm ready to skip Vista altogether and wait for Windows 7...

Why not?
By jonmcc33 on 5/14/2008 12:08:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's okay, these businesses can stick with an OS that is less secure than the upgrade alternative. When they suffer from data or financial loss due to any number of viruses that infect their outdated systems then they will see the bigger picture.

Oddly enough the same thing was said about Windows XP back in the day. People using Windows 2000 were going to skip Windows XP and wait for Longhorn (now Vista).

RE: Why not?
By Quiescent on 5/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Why not?
By jonmcc33 on 5/14/2008 12:39:45 PM , Rating: 3
Aero is negligible and can run on onboard video smoothly as long as it meets the minimum requirements. It's not the reason to switch to Windows Vista by any means.

Compiz is Linux only and uses OpenGL to render so even the crappiest video can use it, although lower end hardware does suffer in performance. It's also nothing but fluff and offers very little to improvement in desktop management or improving productivity. Alt + Tab is all I need for quick application switching. I sure don't need rotating cubes and 6 different desktops to confuse me. If you need more space get widescreen and/or multiple monitors.

RE: Why not?
By AlphaVirus on 5/14/2008 3:09:19 PM , Rating: 2
I sure don't need rotating cubes and 6 different desktops to confuse me. If you need more space get widescreen and/or multiple monitors.

I never understood the need for the rotating cubes with multiple desktops. Do you really need that much to impress people who know nothing about computers?

"Oooh cool you can cube your desktop? Man you are too smart!" -Average user, in which they are also fascinated by how smart you are for increasing the refresh rate on their monitor. >_<

Multiple widescreens makes a heck of a difference if you need more space at work and home.

RE: Why not?
By Quiescent on 5/16/2008 10:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
That's not all that Compiz has. I have it on my Ubuntu partition. It does some wacky stuff. But it's like Mac OS X stuff. Ha, look, Linux can do it better. (I knew someone with a Macbook Pro that was slow and dying from just the glassy, overdone, Compiz like stuff!) And it does work on the Eee too.

I don't see a use for the cubes either. I just use the ALT-TAB feature that shows a thumbnail of the windows.

And I'd get two monitors if I had enough space for them on my tiny Wallycrap desk and my 10x12 foot room! (I have a CRT monitor sitting ontop the shelf thing on my desk... That shelf thing looks like it's about ready to go any minute, haha! And if I do get monitors, I absolutely love the Viewsonic VA2026W. Nice color. Great resolution... I do need a setup like that for Fruity Loops Studios. I run out of space quickly in 1028x1024!

RE: Why not?
By AlphaVirus on 5/19/2008 3:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, I don't know what I would do if I was still on a CRT. They take up way too much space as soon as you get in the 19" and higher. Also once you get above the 1280x1024 resolution, you will never go lower. I am upset that my tv does not go any higher than 1280x1024 for my pc usage. I game on my HDTV from my PC, but sometimes the low reso gets on my nerves.

Also I would never shop at Wallyworld for any furniture, they usually pick the lowest grade of quality just to say "Low prices". And your 10x12 room is not that small, you better appreciate that, people in New York have $200,000 700sq Homes. You might laugh, but its true.

RE: Why not?
By Quiescent on 5/16/2008 10:31:50 AM , Rating: 2
I was just giving an example. I can do that too with XP, I can do that too with Linux.

I certainly already gave another example of why I wouldn't use Vista. (The bloatware!) XP has bloatware too. In fact, I am enjoying my nLited version of XP on my EeePC, that I want to use it on my desktop too. (No popups telling you useless crap that you may already know, I disabled the menu popup delay option which is why over time it slows down even more, now my menus pop up just as fast as they do on Vista, I took the defragmenter out because I don't need it on the Eee, but I'll take that out because I use other software to defrag on my desktop, etc)

I really hate the interface of explorer, to be honest. It's certainly been awhile since I've used Vista, but I do remember it being a pain to go through folders, I like typing it up in Explorer sometimes.

I found the layout of the control panel to be unorganized (not my organizational taste!) and that is why I still use the old skool layout in XP too. I prefer to see my icons and what I want to see instead of trying to figure out which catagory the thing you want to go to is in.

I did enjoy the layout of the start menu, but that is minuscule since I disabled the delay popup menu in XP, and have no problems navigating the start menu on my Eee.

Downrating me for my beliefs is pretty pathetic. I only gave one example. But I can offer you only this: For me, I have seen enough of Vista. Every laptop or computer at school with it on always have some kind of problem. The computers without Vista on them, but Office 2007 have some kind of problem right after installing Office 2007 (program conflictions is one example). It's a nightmare, and I don't want to deal with something that I don't have to.

RE: Why not?
By Mitch101 on 5/14/2008 12:49:10 PM , Rating: 3
XP has been great but XP64 bit? I had less support for XP64 than for Vista 64.

While even my company has stated this originally to pass on Vista this was pre SP1 and a few of us using the OS are rethinking this because Vista since SP1 has been significantly better than when it was released. We all use Vista Ultimate 64 bit editions at home and Vista Buisness edition.

Even myself a die hard XP guy finds himself crippled because XP doesn't have items that I find very useful in Vista on a daily basis. Items that would crush my XP box keep chugging in Vista. PRE SP1 I had trouble keeping Vista alive.

Not adopting Vista I would believe is for several reasons.

1. Lazy or poor IT departments. You know the ones who have trouble getting XP to work as it is. Ones who think NTLDR is missing requires you reload/reimage the machine instead of running FIXMBR.

2. Companies who have legacy applications which are old or too costly to license upgrades for. Some of you companies out there should be banned for your high cost upgrades. Especially those who changed their billing model to bilk companies for more money with your revised per user models for products which do the same job over and over. Part of this issue falls upon #1 because they don't run the apps in a legacy mode to find out it will work.

3. Too much legacy hardware which wont run the OS properly. Which is fine because you should migrate Vista in with a Hardware refresh anyhow.

4. The company is preparing or is part of the recent recession. Whether you believe it exists of not some companies are looking to cut the budget anywhere and this is an area effected.

My Thoughts
XP is great but its dated and if you use Vista for a while it grows on you. PRE SP1 I hated Vista. Come on Gigabyte with my darn Vista 64 USB drivers already although the Microsoft ones are working I think performance can be better with true drivers.

Vista is a bit aggravating at first but after a week to a month you start getting into it. Its a much bigger step than it was from Windows 98 to 2000 or XP.

Before SP1 I would be talking like you and say stick with XP and Stardock no need for Vista. But now I really like it.

As a side note: MY VISTA MACHINE THE OTHER DAY SAID IT FOUND MY DIRECT TV HD-DVR. Not sure what it can do yet because I had to run out the door but I thought this is cool.

RE: Why not?
By Quiescent on 5/14/2008 7:12:46 PM , Rating: 2
I have had no problems with XP 64bit since I've installed it in 2006. It has given me absolutely no problems and my boyfriend has a wider range of seeing no problems than I. No games have any problems. No applications have problems. Perhaps you might be talking about business applications, but because it is based on the Windows Server 2003 kernel, it IS no different than using Windows Server 2003. The stability is spectacular. I don't care to install SPs because I only install them with the OS using nLite. (Which I do plan on doing when I reformat, I got a bad thermaltake powersupply that won't ground itself, and I shocked my case enough that I killed the CMOS battery and corrupted a lot of important system files on the XP 64bit partition.)

Of course, you must be talking about when XP 64bit came out. It is the same as Vista is now, except now it's just as good as XP.

I have used Vista and the only thing I found useful is that I didn't need to install drivers for my Creative Zen Vision:M, HOWEVER, just like Ubuntu, I'm going to slam this down: This is bloatware, not everybody has an MP3 player, so why the heck is on there anyways? I hate bloatware, and that's why I use nLite often now. It makes you think what else Vista has that you don't need.

RE: Why not?
By killerb255 on 5/21/2008 12:32:22 AM , Rating: 2
My brother in law was running Windows Me on his laptop in 2003 and said that he had no problems with it.

My point? Garbage is never 100% garbage. There's always some value to be found by some people.

RE: Why not?
By eye smite on 5/14/2008 12:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
It's not an issue of whether Vista is a good OS or bad one. The issue is perception issue. I'm willing to bet the companies that have switched to vista bought a 25 license agreement which is the minimum number under volume license agreement. Then said companies have to setup a Key Management server to renew the licenses on the 25 said computers every 30 days. MS is learning the hard way, if you don't give customers what they want, or you put items in the OS that cause disdain, you won't sell your product. Didn't they go through this same type of thing with WindowsME? So, MS has to stop trying to think for people and companies and give them what they want in the form of a good OS that can be customized without all the song and dance sideshows.

RE: Why not?
By mdogs444 on 5/14/2008 12:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
You cannot justify "potential viruses" as a reason for upgrading when business do not see the OS as being reliable or yet supported by their software vendors.

RE: Why not?
By jonmcc33 on 5/14/2008 12:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
I do. Windows Vista has already proven to be quite secure by itself, unlike Windows XP in which anything can run as SYSTEM. Not good if you want to protect what you value.

Corporations have been hit hard over the years by nasty malware. The productivity and data loss has cost millions and millions of dollars.

The reason that businesses do not see the OS as being reliable is due largely to the fact that any brand new Windows OS is going to have issues (this dates back to every previous version including Windows XP) and the FUD just keeps on coming in. Heck, even CIO Magazine has had it's share of spreading the FUD. That sure doesn't help in the business world for Microsoft.

RE: Why not?
By retrospooty on 5/14/2008 1:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
The reason companies arent upgrading to Vista is money... It costs money to upgrade. Upgrading system specs for older PC's and training... Also costs money in the IT dept to support all of the end users that cant figure things out and need help on a regular basis.

Any XP machine used in business has this nifty software (available from a number of vendors) called antivirus. If you load it, you are protected. Not sure if you were aware of that fact, based on your post.

Vista is nice, I like it and it works great for me, but it doesn't bring anything to the table for business users. There are no benefits, only costs. That is it and that is all.


RE: Why not?
By 306maxi on 5/14/2008 2:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
Thing is Vista is no more expensive to spec on a new machine than XP. You're completely right that Vista doesn't have any "run out the door and buy it now and install it on your old PC because it's the best OS EVER!" features but by the same token there is no reason to buy XP on a new machine as you'll run into the 4gb wall soon enough and XP64 is rubbish and well there's just no need to spec a 6 year old OS on a new machine.

So don't go upgrading your OS but when you buy/build a new PC buy Vista.

RE: Why not?
By retrospooty on 5/14/2008 7:07:16 PM , Rating: 2
Not in a corporate environment. Thats not how it works. IT is a major paine to do so, and this is why they arent doing it.

RE: Why not?
By darkpaw on 5/14/2008 3:30:55 PM , Rating: 4
Any XP machine used in business has this nifty software (available from a number of vendors) called antivirus. If you load it, you are protected. Not sure if you were aware of that fact, based on your post.

If you believe that, good luck.

AV products are just one link in the chain and have gotten so far behind the curve in actually catching stuff. It's absolutely necessary, but if you think antivirus alone is going to save you, well you don't know much about security.

RE: Why not?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/14/2008 4:24:27 PM , Rating: 1
It's absolutely necessary, but if you think antivirus alone is going to save you, well you don't know much about security.

And likewise, if you think Vista is going to save you....

RE: Why not?
By retrospooty on 5/14/2008 7:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
A descent one does a good job. I work in IT, I know all about security as well as virus protection. If you think Vista is your answer think again.

RE: Why not?
By darkpaw on 5/14/2008 11:16:27 PM , Rating: 2
Hm, stuff changes so fast now when new stuff hits most scanners miss it (4/32)

Almost none of the scanners caught this one

I don't recall saying Vista was a cure all anywhere either. I actually didn't mention Vista once in my post. It does have some new features that *help* and are better then XP (ASLR, DEP *assuming you turn it on*, lower privilege levels for services, more detailed policy settings). Security perfection is impossible, but the more you can do, the better. Would I upgrade a full enterprise's existing systems to Vista? Most likely not, but unless there is a specific application computability issue for customer software the business uses, there is no reason not to use it in the next scheduled refresh.

RE: Why not?
By jonmcc33 on 5/15/2008 1:23:29 PM , Rating: 2
Vista isn't the answer but it's a better answer than Windows XP in regards to security.

RE: Why not?
By wallijonn on 5/16/2008 1:39:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oddly enough the same thing was said about Windows XP back in the day. People using Windows 2000 were going to skip Windows XP and wait for Longhorn (now Vista).

Perhaps, but W2K didn't work with Hyper-threading. So, if one had a hyper-threading cpu they "had" to upgrade to XP.

Following the same logic, if you have a dual, tri, or quad core then your only "alternative" is Vista.

Out of the over 1000 PCs I support, none are dual core. We're getting ready to do a refresh, soon. It'll be up to the boys up front to resolve any Active Directory / network / custom application problems.

By swizeus on 5/14/2008 12:20:05 PM , Rating: 1
Well, my biggest disappointment for vista is their driver compatibility. When migrating from 98 to XP, my first fear is the driver, but then i found out that you can use windows 2000's driver on XP, so until this thing solved, then it's just too hard to use vista. To add the frustration, Vista is extremely slow on a 3GHz Pentium 4 notebook that uses 4200rpm harddisk with a 512MB memory... so, my question, is windows a productivity tools or an annoying tools ?

RE: Disappointment
By Fanon on 5/14/2008 12:26:58 PM , Rating: 5
Microsoft isn't responsible for driver compatibility. Take that up with your hardware manufacturers.

Running any OS with a sub-par amount of RAM will cause it to be slow. XP needs at least 512MB to be decent, and Vista needs 1GB to be decent. You can't expect something to run great without enough RAM. That's just stupidity on your part.

RE: Disappointment
By virtuallyserved on 5/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Disappointment
By retrospooty on 5/14/2008 1:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
"Two of the drivers listed are biometric fingerprint readers and Intel drivers- how many business machines do you think this applies to? "

Not many at all, since most business users are still on XP LOL =)

RE: Disappointment
By virtuallyserved on 5/14/2008 1:47:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad you can have a sense of humor about this.

But seriously, where did people get this notion that Microsoft has no responsibility when it came to drivers? I understand that third party software can be responsible for crashing an OS.

But the fact of the matter is, Microsoft themselves have accepted and admitted responsibility for drivers by creating the WHQL and by distributing drivers via Windows Update.

RE: Disappointment
By retrospooty on 5/14/2008 1:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that you are trying to make sense of fanboys posting reasons that it's anything but MS's fault. Sure MS changed things, that may or may not be a good thing for an individual or companies use. Each of us makes a choice to use it or pass on it. Most businesses are passing, and many users are as well.

I cant understand why fanboys get so angry when other people disagree with their choice, but I guess that is the nature of a fanboy.

RE: Disappointment
By cmdrdredd on 5/14/2008 4:14:26 PM , Rating: 2
retrospooty, you're a fanboy trash Vista like DailyTech's articles always do for no reason.

RE: Disappointment
By SavagePotato on 5/14/2008 4:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
He is the worst kind of fanboy, the lets stay stuck in the past fanboy.

RE: Disappointment
By retrospooty on 5/14/2008 7:19:16 PM , Rating: 2
Stuck in the past? huh? Again, you are way off base.

Not only do I use and enjoy Vista I use it exclusively, not even a dual boot XP system, its just Vista Home Premium... My other system is a media center and it also uses Vista (ultimate). So dont tell me how I am stuck in the past or hate Vista any more... I am getting tired of it.

RE: Disappointment
By retrospooty on 5/14/2008 7:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
I use Vista and like it. I wont be going back to XP. I am not just here bashing Vista, because I really do like it.

All I have ever maintained is that just because mine and yours works fine, doesn't mean that there aren't issues and that everyone with issues is not an idiot. Its not all users errors and driver problems. As far as this thread, again, although I like my Vista and will continue to use it, its not the best fit for businesses. It doent offer anything woth switching to on a corporate level.

Still think I am a fanboy?

RE: Disappointment
By Fanon on 5/14/2008 7:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a common sense consumer that doesn't have a major beef with Vista. This makes me a fanboy? I have one Vista machine, and I have had less problems with it than I did with XP when it launched in late 2001.

I'm willing to wager that 95% of Vista bashers, like yourself, have never used it, or you attempted to use it with incompatible (or inferior) hardware. I'm also willing to wager that if you were out of diapers in 2001, you would bash XP in the same manner that you bash Vista now and proclaim that Windows 98 is good enough.

I can't understand why non-thinking, lemming haters get so angry when people that make rational decisions disagree with their choice, but I guess that's the nature of an idiot.

RE: Disappointment
By Fanon on 5/14/2008 7:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
And had I not taken thirty minutes to construct my reply, half of what I wrote is null and void, seeing that you have, indeed, used Vista.

RE: Disappointment
By Fanon on 5/14/2008 7:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
You make it sound like Microsoft keeps their products behind locked and inaccessible doors until the piece of software is released. Hardware manufacturers have ample time to test major software revisions such as Service Packs. It's the hardware manufacturers' fault if they don't get their drivers up to snuff.

RE: Disappointment
By Griffinhart on 5/14/2008 12:29:41 PM , Rating: 3
Well, let's be fare, XP is horrible on a 512MB laptop as well. 3 years ago I purchased a Dell Inspiron notebook(1.6Ghz Pentium M)with 512MB and even after clearing out all the bloatware that Dell had on it, the machine was dog slow. It wasn't until I upgraded the RAM that the laptop became reasonably quick to use. Today, that same laptop is running Vista Business with no difficulty what-so-ever.

RE: Disappointment
By MRwizard on 5/14/2008 9:43:17 PM , Rating: 2
The case for xp using drivers from 2000 was because the kernal was built from/around the 2000 OS (if im not mistaken)
The problem with Vista is that it has a brand new kernal, which is why we are getting all these compatibility issues with drivers and some software if my understanding is correct. It's rather dificult for manufactureers at the start.

I fear that windows 7 will be having the exact same issues since they are planning on a new kernal (and possibly kernals) once again. It is a very very tricky business to get it right and to get it back-wards compatible

Maybe some one with better knowledge on this subject can shed some more light...

RE: Disappointment
By jonmcc33 on 5/15/2008 1:27:51 PM , Rating: 2
Vista does not use a brand new kernel. Doing that would severely break compatibility. There are things added and removed from the NT kernel for the sake of security.

The reason drivers have issues is because hardware manufacturers (nVIDIA) didn't listen to Microsoft's requirements for drivers.

RE: Disappointment
By killerb255 on 5/21/2008 12:29:15 AM , Rating: 2
Windows 2000 = NT 5.0
Windows XP = NT 5.1
Windows Server 2003 (32 and 64-bit versions) and XP 64-bit = NT 5.2
Windows Vista = NT 6.0

Vista is about as big of a jump as 2000 was from NT 4.0...if version numbers mean much...

But is it really not doing as well as XP?
By Griffinhart on 5/14/2008 12:14:35 PM , Rating: 5
It's one thing to compare Vista adoption to OSX, but where was XP a year and a half after release.

The Windows Weekly podcast ( ) reported last week that, according to Gartner, XP and Vista had/has exactly the same adoption rate in businesses for the same point after in their life cycles. On the overall adoption rate, Vista currently has a larger percent of the install base after a year and a half than XP did at the two year mark.

I am continually amazed how it is somehow news that businesses are slow to adopt new operating systems.

RE: But is it really not doing as well as XP?
By Master Kenobi on 5/14/2008 12:24:46 PM , Rating: 3
No kidding. We just started migration to XP only 3 years ago where I work. Vista is on the table, while we won't migrate to it right now we know we will begin migration to it sometime in 2009/2010. It will come in line with a hardware refresh of our older systems (All of which can handle Vista without hassle). It isn't news that companies wait a long time before switching platforms, that is status quo. I still have about 16% of my environment still running Windows 2000 on the clients that I would like to get rid of before I introduce Vista (Supporting 3 operating systems, to hell with that). The trade rags that talk about the slow business adoption of Vista are just making themselves look like a bunch of fools that have no understanding of a corporate IT environment.

By mdogs444 on 5/14/2008 12:29:10 PM , Rating: 3
We are in same boat - actually just moved the hospital from 2000 to XP last year. But we refuse to upgrade to an OS until at least the OS has a 2nd Service Pack available.

In healthcare, stable 24/7 environment is more important than a flashy OS.

RE: But is it really not doing as well as XP?
By SlipDizzy on 5/14/2008 1:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, I wonder if we work at the same company. We still have about 15% of our machines running Windows 2000 and only really started going to XP about 3 years ago.

I'm assuming a lot of these bloggers/journalist don't realize how much it will cost some of these major corporations to switch to Vista. We generally switch to new O/S as we implement new hardware.

By Master Kenobi on 5/14/2008 6:07:40 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe we do, I'm at FHLMC.

RE: But is it really not doing as well as XP?
By Aloonatic on 5/16/2008 4:49:53 AM , Rating: 2
We just started migration to XP only 3 years ago where I work. Vista is on the table, while we won't migrate to it right now we know we will begin migration to it sometime in 2009/2010.

With rumours about Windows 7 being released in mid 2009 (so late 2010 closer to the truth?) then the policy at your work place must take into account the potential of skipping Vista and going straight to Win 7 too?

Most of the Vista defenders (I don't care either way really to be honest, I'm running XP at home now without being hacked every 5 minutes but will probably get Vista for my new build PC at the end of the year) seem to be missing the main point in the article, as you have.

If Win 7 is coming out so soon then why bother with Vista? Especially when people have upgrade schedules like yours, around the 2009/10 mark?

If Vista's security and business benefits are so amazing and migration isn't that much hassle then why aren't you more eager to upgrade now?

By the way, we're running both Vista and XP in my office and apart from the odd "the start button looks different" type problems things have been pretty easy apart from the poor 3rd party support of course.

MS have made Vista's problems all by themselves IMO. XP has been a great success and everyone loves it (so much so that they are easily able to overlook it's flaws) and the release of the "Win 7 coming 2nd Qtr, 2009" news was just silly.

RE: But is it really not doing as well as XP?
By jonmcc33 on 5/16/2008 7:52:26 AM , Rating: 2
With rumours about Windows 7 being released in mid 2009 (so late 2010 closer to the truth?) then the policy at your work place must take into account the potential of skipping Vista and going straight to Win 7 too?

Do you seriously believe that Windows 7 will be released RTM in 2009? No, it will be available for testing purposes as Microsoft has specifically stated. RTM maybe in late 2010...

Also, do you seriously believe that it's not going to have problems when it first comes out? Every Windows version has been problematic upon first release. This includes Windows Vista and Windows XP. It would probably be 2011 to 2012 before the first Service Pack for Windows 7. And of course mainstream support for Windows XP ends in 2009 anyway. Extended support (typical patches and fixes) ends in 2014.

By Aloonatic on 5/16/2008 3:33:57 PM , Rating: 2
You can read word inside brackets can't you?

I said that late 2010 was probably somewhere closer to the truth?

You see, with your eyes? look, see?

I was trying to pointing out that many people here defending Vista in a massively over the top and aggressive way (and again, I really don't care, no axe to grind here) point out that Vista has been pretty damn good right from release, so you're saying that the next version of Windows won't be is a little odd.

I was merely pointing out the silliness (to put it mildly) of many people's posts and who say that Vista has always been fine but wont be deploying it until the next version of windows is (apparently) due for release which I can only assume they think will be just as good, regardless of what many people may say?

You see, read, with your eyes, geeez.

/comment in response to overly defensive Americans who seem to be scared (for some unknown reason) of any comment that doesn't blow smoke up an American companies arse, onto a story about the xBox being Awesome, hurah

RE: But is it really not doing as well as XP?
By Carter642 on 5/14/2008 12:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
Businesses are always going to be slow to adopt new OS's, and the bigger the company the slower it will be.

They can't just start installing a new OS willynilly, everything needs to be validated with their IT infrastructure and then all the appropriate training needs to occur and that's just the minimum.

An example of my own, when Vista first came out my company started validation testing. A year later they decided to can it for all the labs because it would require re-validation of all the lab machine software(both commercial and in-house) with the FDA. For our lab machines the benefits of Vista were precisely zero.

The other bad news is that companies have gotten wind of Windows 7 and coupled with the bad taste from vista it's basically triggered the "lets wait for the next version because it'll be so much better" instinct in IT managers everywhere.

By Master Kenobi on 5/14/2008 6:09:13 PM , Rating: 3
What will be more amusing is when they try to go from XP to Windows 7, which will also contain all of security enhancements found in Vista, that compatibility with existing older apps will be just as bad, if not worse.

More typical Mick
By Domicinator on 5/14/2008 1:00:44 PM , Rating: 4
This is just YET ANOTHER case of Jason Mick regurgitating information and trying to turn it into more anti-Vista press. You always know when you see a headline like this that it's going to be a Mick article.

News flash for you Jason--It's pretty common for businesses to reject ANY new version of Windows or MacOS. It costs too much time and money for a large company to switch their networks over to a new OS. In most cases it even involves bringing in extra IT consultants to handle the work load. If you don't know this, then you shouldn't be writing for DailyTech. Actually, strike that last comment. You shouldn't be writing for them no matter what. Most of your articles are garbage and are only written with the intent of getting more hits.

RE: More typical Mick
By virtuallyserved on 5/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: More typical Mick
By SavagePotato on 5/14/2008 1:36:06 PM , Rating: 1
Flame bait FUD articles like this one gather attention. Attention is readership and revenue.

Ever hear the phrase there is no such thing as bad press? Dailytech is basically a sensationalist rag with alternating wildly biased personal opinion articles from would be journalists.

Jason Mick really shouldn't be allowed to post anything that isn't a blog entry considering his biased sensationalist tones on 100% of his articles. Anyone remember the "Vista SP1 kills your computer!!" article that he actually had to take down? Which was a horrible slant made up on a handfull of people having a crash issue in release candidate stages with sp1 on the ms forums.

RE: More typical Mick
By retrospooty on 5/14/2008 1:38:55 PM , Rating: 3
"Dailytech is basically a sensationalist rag with alternating wildly biased personal opinion articles from would be journalists."

And yet, here you are every day... makes you wonder doesn't it?

RE: More typical Mick
By virtuallyserved on 5/14/2008 1:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly my thoughts.

RE: More typical Mick
By retrospooty on 5/14/2008 1:48:52 PM , Rating: 2
YA, it will be interesting to see him spin a response to that LOL . /shrug

RE: More typical Mick
By SavagePotato on 5/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: More typical Mick
By retrospooty on 5/14/2008 7:10:33 PM , Rating: 2
Of course I am entertained, but I come because I enjoy the articles.

And I do understand your train wreck analogy, but to come and read is one thing. To post day after day is another.

RE: More typical Mick
By SavagePotato on 5/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: More typical Mick
By retrospooty on 5/15/2008 11:38:55 AM , Rating: 2
In a free country people get to do whatever they like, including post their opinion anytime they feel like.

Absolutely... and I wouldn't ever say you dont have the right to do that. It just seems to me, that if you hate the newscasters and programs on channel 3, and are vocal about how bad they are there at channel 3, your Tivo shouldnt be filled up with channel 3 all day every day... LOL =)

RE: More typical Mick
By 67STANG on 5/14/2008 3:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
Guess PC World is a sensationalist rag too?,140583-page,5-c,...

RE: More typical Mick
By Domicinator on 5/14/2008 3:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
Mick's beloved OSX Leopard is on that list too. And that list has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Jason Mick made it sound in his article like Windows Vista is a special case because companies won't use it yet. If you buy into this "article", you're seriously gullible and you DESERVE a Mac.

RE: More typical Mick
By SavagePotato on 5/14/2008 3:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
You guessed right.

RE: More typical Mick
By robinthakur on 5/15/2008 11:24:24 AM , Rating: 2
OK so...You like Vista and MS and you hate Apple and OSX. Jason Mick is apparently biased against Microsoft in your limited opinion.

I think I've just summed up all of SavagePotato and all of his ilk's posting history. It gets boring with the same band of torch-carrying peasants following every Mick blog or article with this dross. I like Vista too but I can understand where Jason is coming from. Believe it or not, corporate take up of Vista is low and whisperings of skipping it completely in favour of version 7 are at an all time high.

RE: More typical Mick
By Domicinator on 5/15/2008 3:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
Again, more anecdotal yapping and no substance. And you seem to be basing this comment on what Mick says above. Corporate take up is low on ANY NEW OS. That's the real catch here.

Yes, businesses are hesitant to move to Vista......BECAUSE IT'S A NEW OS!!! If you think they're going to jump all over Windows 7 the second it comes out, you're nuts. Do you think the CEO of GM is sitting there thinking about how he's going to teach Microsoft a lesson by not buying Vista? Christ no!!! He's thinking about how to make more money and increase the value of the company. He probably doesn't even know or care what Vista has to offer. If someone tells him it's cheaper to stay on XP or 2000, he'll stay. If someone tells him it's cheaper to switch everything over to a new OS, he'll do it.

This has nothing to do with which version of Windows it is. This has to do with how much it costs to switch. This isn't some big phenomenon unique to Vista. If you want to allow some ridiculous Jason Mick blog-disguised-as-article-with-patented-Balmer-phot o-attached-to-it to mislead you to that conclusion, then go right ahead.

By noirsoft on 5/14/2008 12:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
What is funny is that the hardware reqs for vista aren't really that high, unless these people bought their machines 7 years ago when XP first came out. The specs that are important are 2 gigs of Ram (and with 4 gigs going for $89, it's cheap) and a reasonable video card (again can be had for well under $100) Even a base P4 CPU handles Vista just fine. These people talking about the price of upgrading are either seriously out of date (i.e. their motherboard can't handle 2 gigs of ram or a decent video card) or are just blowing smoke.

RE: Funny
By Master Kenobi on 5/14/2008 12:16:53 PM , Rating: 2
The oldest model laptop at my company (NC6000 from HP) will handle Vista without a problem. That laptop is 3-4 years out of date.

RE: Funny
By 306maxi on 5/14/2008 2:05:15 PM , Rating: 3
<sarcasm>Rubbish!!!! My brothers, mothers, dogs uncle said that Vista requires a 10,000 dollar PC just to reach the minimum specs and you can forget about running Aero with anything less than 10 9800 GX2's and that's just for a 640*480 monitor</sarcasm>

RE: Funny
By mdogs444 on 5/14/2008 12:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
For standard business applications (ie - not running SQL, Oracle, etc), 2GB and onboard video are fine. When the fact is that many workstations applications are migrating to web based applications that use API's to read the info from databases.

The problem though, is upgrading an entire host of PC's outside of their prospective upgrade dates. In my hospital alone, we have over 7,000 computers. At roughly $500/a piece in a dell contract, you're looking at roughly $3.5M of unexpected costs.

But as this article stated, and as a fact that our hospital has encountered, is that small software vendors are not supporting their application on Vista. And when you are in healthcare and demand a stable 24/7 environment, it makes no sense to change what works.

RE: Funny
By IGoodwin on 5/14/2008 1:08:11 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure about upgrading to Vista at work, I'd just like to be upgraded to XP from 2000.

Can't see it happening unless there is a financial reason to do so, or there is some "must have" application, so no surprise with the news about slow adoption by companies.

At home I run Vista Ultimate 64bit, mainly because I like being able to use all the memory, and have access to DX10 graphics. Like, or displike, of Vista is subjective and depends on use.

RE: Funny
By das mod on 5/14/2008 12:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
Vista's hardware requirements, as you say, aren't really that high, but you have to consider that the average household
does not aim to adopt high end technology right away
(factoring that the average family has a Pentium III based system), so adopting a new high end OS isn't viable for

The most likely problem with those people complaining, is
the fact that their configurations are on a huge average
"base systems" which had minimum specs to run xp
and wanting to upgrade the OS with a major hardware
overhaul is just close to impossible.

Now, if their systems were high end machines running
XP, regardless of being 5 years old, the vista adoption
would have been more plausible.

RE: Funny
By virtuallyserved on 5/14/2008 12:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
Individually, sure, the requirements are not that high. But just taking a look at Dell's Small Business Workstations (in this case Precision T3400) three out of the four models have 1 GB of RAM. Upgrading the RAM constitutes a minimum of $140 dollars (partially due to the fact that these models us ECC RAM). Thinking about it from a business perspective, if you have to deploy 100 systems, that's a $14,000 overhead.

Individual techies may not have an excuse, but when you look at actual purchasing scenarios in a business environment, this equates to another 20-25 systems worth of productivity just to support Vista.

RE: Funny
By SavagePotato on 5/14/2008 1:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
I guess you don't know how dells "upgrades" work

They charge you the full cost of the upgrade part without discounting the part it's replacing. Instead of paying the difference of cost you pay the full price.

In short, Dell sticks it to you hard.

Everyone is aware that dell is a screwjob.

RE: Funny
By virtuallyserved on 5/14/2008 2:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, then lets look at HP's xw4550, starts out w/ 1GB (some models come with 512 mb) of ECC RAM, upgrades to 2 gigs cost $93.00. Across 100 systems it ends up being a cost of $9300.00.

The point is the same, even if Dell is a screwjob. 2GB of RAM from just about any manufacturer costs more than 1 GB. When you have enterprise class customers such as AT&T doing budgeting and signing lease contracts for 200+ systems at a time, they can stand to save a substantial amount of money and management overhead by not supporting Vista.

RE: Funny
By retrospooty on 5/14/2008 1:47:27 PM , Rating: 2
"These people talking about the price of upgrading are either seriously out of date (i.e. their motherboard can't handle 2 gigs of ram or a decent video card) or are just blowing smoke."

Your right about system specs, but when you have 10000 users $50 each for Ram is 500,000 bucks. There is also alot of costs you are not considering. Changing anything in an enterprise environment takes time, skillsets and a great deal of coordination. After the fact tech support goes through the roof with ding dong end users that cant figure out how to cope. It costs alot all added up and Vista doesnt have anything that XP has with regards to business users. Even if the cost is minimal (in many cases it is) there is no benefit, so businesses arent bothering to try.

RE: Funny
By Master Kenobi on 5/15/2008 12:42:07 AM , Rating: 2
The benefits are there. Thats why Vista migration is on the books for the majority of companies on the long term project strategies. From an IT stand point, Vista is easier to deploy, maintain, and update (especially corporate images) than XP could ever hope to be. Most of the companies that are right now "waiting for windows 7" will be going to Vista once they see what Windows 7 looks like on release (buggy, untested, their apps dont work with it, not the answer to all of their problems they had hoped for). There was talk of waiting for Longhorn when we were on 2000. Problem is that "Longhorn" was delayed, and we had to get off 2000 because it was EOL. Thus the XP migration started a full 4 almost 5 years after its initial market offering. All this talk about "skipping vista" is just hot air from IT managers that (as usual) are clueless and think whatever is just around the corner is the salvation and answer to every problem they have (no such thing exists in the IT field).

Who Really Cares?
By bobdeer1965 on 5/14/2008 12:47:16 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know about all of you but I am tired of hearing all of this.

Let move on and hear some real news.

And yes you are free to use Mac OSX, XP, Vista 98SE, or Linux or whatever you want.

Just quit the fighting and bitching and use your computer in peace.

Also why do we need to preview before we post when the writers of these articles don't. They just post them and maybe correct the mistakes later. After we point them out.

Another point.

I like the way the Klingons talk.


RE: Who Really Cares?
By Domicinator on 5/14/2008 1:02:57 PM , Rating: 4
We will speak of this again, because Jason Mick will not stop writing BS articles.

RE: Who Really Cares?
By virtuallyserved on 5/14/2008 1:10:59 PM , Rating: 2
Is it really BS? Because this article seems to be accurate from a corporate perspective.

RE: Who Really Cares?
By Domicinator on 5/14/2008 3:23:34 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, it's 100% inaccurate from a corporate perspective. Does Jason Mick mean to tell me that a corporation is actually going to wait for Windows 7 and then jump right on it as soon as it's out? That's a ridiculous notion. They won't jump on 7 any faster than they'll jump on any other new release.

This article is a waste of internet, and so is this website unless this d-bag continues to be allowed to post on it.

RE: Who Really Cares?
By The0ne on 5/14/2008 6:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
While I don't disagree with you point there the article is not 100% BS. Large companies I've worked for in the past (3000+ employess) have skipped several versions of Windows because of many factors. Foremost is cost and support. In this sense, the article is at least not 100% BS.

Not surprising or even unusual
By archcommus on 5/14/2008 12:03:00 PM , Rating: 3
It's not weird or new that companies do not want to adopt Vista yet due to its requirements. Of course XP is leaner, it's 7 years old! I'm sure not many companies had XP installed a year after release either. I will admit, the "heft" increase from XP to Vista is probably larger than from 98 to 2000 or from 2000 to XP, but still, this situation is not unusual. The only reason companies might be able to skip the whole OS this time around is because the development cycle is being shortened. They may change their minds - in 2010 Windows 7 may be having its own problems and by then Vista SP2 or SP3 will be good and solid.

I don't think anyone will dispute that Vista is not good for businesses right now. It is, however, good for a powerful, personal home computer.

RE: Not surprising or even unusual
By SavagePotato on 5/14/2008 4:41:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's funny, the impression I get when I read the rants of Vista detractors is that somehow Vista is just going to be canceled and someone is going to go around confiscating all the copies and everyone is going to have to go back to XP.

Honestly what do you think is going to happen? XP is no longer sold as of June, tons of people are using Vista and having great results doing so. In the next two years if we assume Windows 7 first of all is released in 2010, and second of all is the miracle people think it will be, people are still going to be buying new PC's for the next two years and every one is going to come loaded with Vista.

Like it or not It's here, and it's not going away. Many people think it's a great operating system. As a PC enthusiast I am excited to see what Windows 7 brings as well. I don't understand the fools that refuse to move forward and cling to the past.

By wallijonn on 5/19/2008 4:37:09 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly what do you think is going to happen? XP is no longer sold as of June...

I've noticed that the price of XP Professional has gone from about $85 to $140 (pricewatch, newegg, zipzoomfly, etc.). Maybe there's been a run on licenses...

I don't understand the fools that refuse to move forward and cling to the past.

Money. Money. Money.

One can buy a new PC w/Vista for about $1500 ($2000 if they also buy a new wide screen 24" LCD monitor,) or they can buy an HDTV. Maybe a few are deciding to buy the TV set instead and throw a little more memory into XP for a quick boost in speed. As far as gaming goes, some may opt to buy all three game consoles instead, or buy a 360 or PS3 and a 42" or 50" LCD or plasma.

It's about money. Many of us don't want to spend "another" $1200 right now. Some of us would rather buy a big panel TV or fix the old heap in the garage (new tyres, brakes, shocks, muffler, battery, radiator.)

By 67STANG on 5/14/2008 1:41:30 PM , Rating: 1
Who would of thought that all of the Vista fanboys have been bragging about all of the benefits and advances that Vista brings to the table, yet Vista hardly holds a lead over Apple in the business sector. (our corporation has 2 Macs and 0 Vista Machines-- all the rest are Server OS's and XP) I guess to be fair, Vista has only been out for a year and a half...

Interestingly enough they are planning on "slimming down with Windows 7". But I thought "Vista isn't bloated"?

RE: Amazing.
By Domicinator on 5/14/2008 3:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
I guess according to your little anecdote that I'm supposed to believe that OSX has more of a presence in the business world. The plural of anecdote is not data.

RE: Amazing.
By SavagePotato on 5/14/2008 4:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
If you can show me a post dos Microsoft OS that wasn't accused of being bloated other than Windows 2000 (IE every single consumer targeted OS) then you can have a cookie.

My prediction is shock of all shocks, people will call Windows 7 bloated as well.

RE: Amazing.
By omnicronx on 5/14/2008 4:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
That 4.5% is for the entire market, not the business market. If I had to guess of that 4.5%, less than 1% are business MAC users. I can also bet none of those business's are using OSX Leopard as it has not been well received in the business world.(go look at some of the reviews on the Apple store)

You’re Missing The Point of An OS
By rasmith260 on 5/14/2008 2:26:12 PM , Rating: 3
I think what some of you in support of upgrading fail to realize is the purpose of an OS in the first place. Basically if an OS does what it’s supposed to do you don’t even notice it’s there. Most people don’t use an OS per say, they use the programs they install on it. Microsoft started this whole thing about upgrading (to have a stable source of income & fix the problems in the last OS) and most people went along because they hoped the newer version would be better (i.e. more stable) than the last. While there were always people who didn’t want to upgrade, most went along because previous Windows versions would always crash or blue screen at the most inopportune times, and with XP especially after SP2 that became an issue of the past (at least for most people), and while Vista might be more secure it’s fair to say that most hackers don’t steal info off of your PC’s, they steal it off of the Corporate Servers you do business with (like Amazon or E-Bay, Etc….) or at Restaurants when you give someone your Credit Card and they have one of those cloning machines, etc...., so having the most secure PC in the world does you no good if the weakest link isn’t even your PC. If anyone can tell me what Vista can do, that XP can’t (and don’t bring up DX10 because I don’t play PC games & Aero Glass while pretty I don’t care about), I will gladly upgrade; otherwise I’ll stick with XP.

By Clauzii on 5/14/2008 6:32:14 PM , Rating: 2

By MRwizard on 5/14/2008 10:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
But Vista can give you a red screen of death!!

I know thats not what you wanted to hear, but its what came up ot mind first

Jason Mick
By guy007 on 5/14/2008 6:35:13 PM , Rating: 3
Every time this guy writes an article ppl start crying about bias yet when Michael Asher writes one of his bogus, biased, junk science articles on global warming all I hear is praise. Why don't we pick up on that bias? We call Asher's articles "editorials" but Mick doesn't get any excuses?

Let's be fair. If its ok for Asher then its ok for Mick. This is Dailytech not Fox news.

Let the downrating begin

BTW I don't like apple, I use XP and linux.

RE: Jason Mick
By calaverasgrandes on 5/14/2008 9:14:01 PM , Rating: 1
Every time this guy writes an article ppl start crying about bias yet when Michael Asher writes one of his bogus, biased, junk science articles on global warming all I hear is praise. Why don't we pick up on that bias? We call Asher's articles "editorials" but Mick doesn't get any excuses?

oh boy another global warming denier.
I suppose cigarettes dont increase risk of cancer either?
The list of credible scientists that think human activity hasnt had an impact on global temperatures can be counted on one hand.

RE: Jason Mick
By guy007 on 5/15/2008 12:47:02 PM , Rating: 2
I think you misunderstand. Mike Asher writes all these bogus articles trying to deny global warming. I am saying that if we give him the right to those "editorials" we shouldn't be so hard on Jason Mick.

Just the latest example of why not to use Vista
By jay401 on 5/14/2008 1:50:28 PM , Rating: 1
NBC-Vista copy-protection snafu reminds us why DRM stinks

A number of Windows Vista Media Center users noticed this week that a copy-protection flag from NBC was preventing them from recording a couple of shows. Although the incident appears to be an isolated accident, it serves as a reminder that content owners want to use DRM to control every aspect of our media consumption.

By panhead20 on 5/14/2008 6:29:57 PM , Rating: 2
By Griffinhart on 5/15/2008 6:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
Actually the article never said XP wasn't affected. It just never mentioned it. The truth is, this particular problem has cropped up a few times over the past several years and also happens to XP MCE 2005. It's a function of the Media Center software. It is still possible to record these shows using other DVR software under XP and Vista when the flag is on.

The particular problem in question usually gets resolved in a couple few days once the programs entries in the guide are corrected.

Obvious lack of understanding...
By Redback on 5/14/2008 10:42:24 PM , Rating: 5
The result has led to financial losses for Microsoft

Can someone please point me to these alleged "financial losses" within Microsoft's quarterly report? Do you understand what a "loss" is Jason?

A slight quarter-on-quarter reduction in the rate of sales does not constitute a "financial loss".

Interestingly, in the 9 months to the end of the March quarter, Microsoft's client revenue (read: Windows) increased 12% compared with the same period last year. The profit for that division over the same period was up 13% to $9.8 billion...

If these are "financial losses", I'd like some!!!

Perhaps Jason Mick should spend more time learning about business (and journalism) and less time working out ways to report as negatively as possible on anything relating to Microsoft.

Jason, you are clearly out of your depth.

No Vista64 issues here; love it
By zero2dash on 5/14/2008 12:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
I tried Vista32 on my old system right after launch and ended up going back to XP due to the lower specs. (P4 3.0C, 1gig DDR 400, Radeon 9500 agp)

With my new build (E2180 @ 3.2ghz, 4gigs DDR2 800 @ 966mhz, eVGA 8800GT, now a 9800GTX) I wanted to move up to a 64bit os and I gave XP64 and Vista64 both a chance and XP64 was trashed very quickly when I found out that iTunes refuses to work in it (and yes, I need to have iTunes because it is my mp3 app of choice). iTunes32 has no importing or burning support in XP64, and iTunes64 will not install in XP64 (it says it's not a 64bit os).

I have had nothing but pure joy with Vista64 Ultimate. No problems. Runs as fast as XP did. I get all 4gigs of my ram. I've had no driver issues. UAC does not bother me; in fact, I hardly ever get questioned by it. All of my software works great in Vista.

I know there's a fair amount of anti-Vista sentiment out there, but it's ridiculous when articles such as this do nothing to show one iota from the pro-Vista crowd.

...just my two cents. ;^)

RE: No Vista64 issues here; love it
By The0ne on 5/14/2008 7:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
P4 3.0C, 1gig DDR 400, Radeon 9500 agp

This system can't run Vista? :) So when people talk about Vista running on "basic" machines I wonder what they mean by that. Also, "run" is subjective :)

I have Ultimate and like it but it (drivers probably) lags my only game FFXI like a slug :( I can have 4 instances of FFXI running on XP and no lag on all four wiwndows...yay! :) And this is with settings set to "best performance". Aero only makes it worse ><

system is Q6600 @3.2Ghz, 8800GTS, 4Gig, 2Tbyte HD, etc. so not a slouch to run Vista Ultimate.

Simple, really
By maxplank on 5/14/2008 3:41:49 PM , Rating: 2
Vista has been hobbled by the incredible success and penetration of previous versions. There's so many embedded systems, specific systems, tailored solutions, etc out there that a significant proportion of the market simply can't change OS any more - businesses have been built around apps built on XP. Seen your local tire/auto/body repair shop shopfloor system? It's an old beaten up ruggedized cart with test equipment on it - that most likely is running Windows 95. They can barely run XP on it, but their business is built around it. And it doesn't need to do any more. And that's one of millions of examples. Previous versions of Windows became so embedded into the global business system that it's like the sewage system now - just a utility, and the market doesn't want it to be any better. Meanwhile, the OS's with a much lower and more specific PC-user market share get to modernize and experiment like crazy with new technologies Windows can't even look at.

I'm sad for Microsoft that their business model has died through success. But Im happy that there is still real innovation in the OS world, OSX, Linux, etc among them.

RE: Simple, really
By OPR8R on 5/14/2008 4:34:46 PM , Rating: 2
To a certain extent, I agree that XP's success has a lot to do with the perception that Vista sux, though I think competitors' marketing investments have paid off as well.

American consumers are very slow to adopt new tech. If we have something we're comfortable with, know how to use, and doesn't cost us too much money to operate we tend to hold onto it like a baby holds onto its mother's teet. And for a lot of home users, XP is their first and only OS.

It's amazing to me how people talking about the same piece of software (maybe different version) have such different opinions of it. I guess there's no stopping the fanboi effect, ie., make a decision (based on experience or not) and stick with it no matter what you read or hear that might contradict your original opinion.

By Bummrounde on 5/14/2008 6:08:36 PM , Rating: 2
What's FUD?

By MRwizard on 5/14/2008 9:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
another way of saying BS

If the requirements for Vista are too high....
By Fenixgoon on 5/14/2008 11:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
What makes them think Windows 7 will run any better?

By rollakid on 5/15/2008 3:21:53 AM , Rating: 2
Because it couldn't get any worse?

When (and when not) to use Vista
By shaunbed on 5/15/2008 8:32:32 AM , Rating: 2
I personally feel Vista is a great operating system and a large step forward for Microsoft.

However, Vista suffers from many problems the biggest which are caused by third parties: poor drivers and poorly written software.

If you have any hardware on your computer that is over two years old, you should not consider upgrading to Vista (under any reason). If you have new hardware, Vista will probably give a much nicer user experience for most users. If you have non-typical hardware, you should investigate potential driver issues before upgrading as there still are many. Upgrading on older hardware is questionable at best, even if it works, the drivers are likely to slow the operating system.

If you run any special software, you need to investigate thoroughly before upgrading to vista. Many software packages especially those created by small software shops or infrequently updated software will not run on Vista. Sometimes you can tweak this to get it to work. For example, litespeed won't install because of UAC but that is an easy temporary fix. This is unfortunately the software vendors fault but we tend to take a 'if it runs on XP, it should run on Vista' attitude and blame Microsoft even though the software was probably doing bad things that should have never been allowed (usually insecure operations in Vista's case). Usually well written software runs everywhere.

Sometimes the software vendors can't fix or won't ever fix the problems and then we all need to start praying to the virtualization gods for our solution and use Virtual PC or VM ware (etc.). These solutions work for IT professionals but not home users. Of course with Hyper-V and other forms of light weight virtualization to be incorporated in the OS (probably by Windows 7), businesses should be able to use these features for the migration of legacy apps. Good built in virtualization technology is a good reason for businesses to skip Vista. Of course, the cynic in my mumbles something to the effect that such virtualization technology may take too long to arrive and by then businesses are stuck on a very antiquated operating system.

What does this mean? Basically this usually means that the following users should use the following operating systems.

Power Users/High End Gamers (Primarily New Games) - Vista X64
High End Gamers (Mix) - Dual Boot XP and Vista X64
Typical Gamers (Primarily old or low tech games) - XP
Typical User (New Computer) - Vista 32 bit
Typical User (Otherwise) - XP
Windows Developer (non - server) - Vista (32 and 64 bit dual boot - with some XP lab systems)
Windows/Database Developer (server) - mix 2003 server / 2008 server (depending on whether the software being supported can run on 2008)(64 bit versions are preferrable)
Typical Business User (older hardware or with incompatible software - typical of specialized industry) - XP
Typical Business User (new system) - Vista 32 bit (without Aero - Consider virtualizing this onto a beefy server as most users only use about 5% cpu at any given time. At this point VM ware is probably the best option but consider Hyper-V when it gets out of CTP. Virualization is not a panacea for management but it is a lot easier to clone VMs and less hardware is easier to maintain. Consider bumping this up to 64-bit if you don't have issues and you feel that your users might need more than 2 GB of memory in the next 5 years. There is no upgrade path to 64-bit, however, if a user doesn't have a lot of data on their local VM, this is not an issue)
Infrastructure - Probably XP (for personel) and Windows 2003 (with perhaps a couple Windows 2008 boxes for new web servers (IIS 7 is pretty slick but other features like Hyper-V need a bit more work) - A lot of management tools won't work with Vista and Infrastructure people won't see a lot of benefits).

By William Gaatjes on 5/15/2008 3:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
My opinion is that a new version of an operating system must not tax the hardware more while providing the same functionality or doing the same task as the previous os. When a new feature provides more efficiëncy for the end user in a given task then i find it ok.

I also like to compare other operating systems from other software manufacturers. If a given os requires more powerfull hardware compared to the competition for a given task then that os is a flop.
If there was competition in the windows market...

Seeing what is happening with windows vista, i find it strange to believe that microsoft did not see it coming.
They did, but they also have to stay friends with oem's and other hardware companies.

[Hope mode actived]

Since they have to note minimal hardware requirements either way, i would advice the following :

It would be better if they pushed a 64bit version only.
But as before in a home flavour and corporate flavour. The extra features companies would pay for are mostly not used by home customers. So leave those features out entirely. A more truly modular approach.

Using the more powerfull hardware of today to recreate the sense of speed with windows xp on older hardware of yesterday when running the same software.

A new OS does not have to make the current software run faster, just has to relief the software from it's limitations.
The software would be run for example in a more secure manner.

Don't add exotic features to current 3rd software. That is what new versions are for.

What an os must do is make new software(the new versions) run faster. Because of a new better api with new and improved functions which 3rd party programmers can use.

Because of new hardware with more possibilities.

Because of a new driver model which ends up in more speed while maintaining stability.This extra speed is only seen when using the new api's afcourse.

Because of a new kernel that uses the new hardware in full extent.

With microsoft i feel this is the other way around.
Yes vista has a new and improved kernel which should really translate in more efficiëncy and thus make the os more reactive. But it is lost somewhere...

When running in 64 bit only an os writer get's to use more features of the processor.
They can use these features to provide more usefull functions as a new standard api for windows.
Something to sell to the customers.

Microsoft could have made an 64 bit os with new functions with easy acces to simd calculations with possibilities of using the gfx card for example. And easy acces to sse. You don't have to use special flags for the compiler. No the os would have native support for it. Expose that hardware through api's to customers.

They dit it with directx for home users. And looked what happened.

But this time a directx like standard suitable for companies to improve their business.

You see companies don't nag. They just see possibilities, a new market.

With windows xp +sp2 and a capable ict department a company really has no need vor the same wine in new more expensive bottles. And that is what the software running on windows has become.

What microsoft need is a killer feature for 3rd party software companies to use.

[Hope mode deactivated]

Feel free to disagree wit me but this is what truly sells software. Even if it means that the next version of such an os as given by my example will no longer provide native support for old api's. And nobody would care. Because they are all busy exploiting the new features. No negative news.

Puzzling difference between XP & Vista
By jabber on 5/15/2008 1:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
Can anyone explain the reason for the following -

A default install of XP Pro comes in at around 1 to 1.5Gb.

A default install of Vista Basic weighs in at around 12Gb.

Whats in that extra 10Gb when the functionality is more or less the same? No one has yet been able to sensibly answer that yet.

By William Gaatjes on 5/15/2008 2:12:28 PM , Rating: 2
I am not sure but i suspect it has something to do with this :

By krwhite on 5/15/2008 1:18:19 PM , Rating: 2
I've bought a Mac for my parents, and I use Vista myself. Being a designer, I can't imagine why you wouldn't pay $60 on a core2duo 1.8 and just get yourself out of the away from the childish looking XP. Honestly, it looks like playskool OS. Do you really want that extra 4fps?

Guys (yes, not a single girl reads these articles), my processor is $45 on ebay, O/C'd to 3ghz. Vista runs absolutely fine. I've actually run Mac OS on this hardware as well. Mac OS is certainly 'smoother' in feel, however, Vista to me is a more professional GUI, with the breadcrumb bar, the taskbar, the windows, and just the overall explorer design. It's a choice really. It's not 'if youre a gamer, you run windows'. Many people are used to working with windows. Many, like myself, actually like to use it more than the Mac.

In my opinion, the philosophy of an open platform such as Windows or Linux is greater than that of a closed Mac platform. I want the freedom to build my own machine. I'm sure that companies also want the freedom to develop hardware for it as well. Apple doesn't give that to me. I believe that's bad for the industry, personally. Surely we wouldn't have 2 processor companies, or many mainboard companies, or many graphic card companies if MS chose to be closed to building their own systems. Perhaps the market shares would be flipped if MS and Apple chose the opposite routes.

Vista has been a good OS for me. I actually have had it booted for over 30 days without problems. To the Mac guy who thinks Windows is good for nothing, please, enjoy the processor you use, because it stemmed from the competition in the PC arena, in the real open society.

RE: hm
By Reclaimer77 on 5/15/2008 5:14:30 PM , Rating: 2
I've bought a Mac for my parents, and I use Vista myself. Being a designer, I can't imagine why you wouldn't pay $60 on a core2duo 1.8 and just get yourself out of the away from the childish looking XP. Honestly, it looks like playskool OS. Do you really want that extra 4fps?

Again confirming that the average Mac buyer is more interested in style over functionality. Thank you.

By DeepBlue1975 on 5/14/2008 1:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
I like Vista. I use the x64 version (for a few days now, been using the 32bit version for more than 1 year, since the first release client) on a q6600 with 2gbs of ram and it runs really good.

I have had no incompatibility problems with my nvidia card, or my motherboards features, nor with my favourite software (I have to test daemon tools and some others yet, including games, though).

But regardless of the fact that I like Vista, I could never say it's a kind OS on resources, which isn't at all a point for the "performance oriented" DIY crowd, but it is for corporate and regular user. Even the vista basic with no aero interface is not too forgiving on RAM.

Last year my wife had a new 512mb laptop with vista basic and it was painfully slow. Granted, with just a few bucks we stuck 2gbs in there and the thing started working pretty decently, but for some company that has to spend those "few bucks" multiplied by many hundreds of times, it's not worthy.

And certainly it's also not worthy for those who get a laptop or desktop pc just to sufr the web and use office and some occasional multimedia apps. Needing 2gbs of memory just for that kind of use is really pointless and won't give you many benefits over doing the same things on an XP machine with just 1gb of memory.

The standard pcs used and being sold out there are not the greatest match for an OS like Vista.

I guess MS should learn the lesson when win 7 comes out, so that it has the kind of hardware needs that most computers, even the low end ones that are to be sold by then, can cope with, instead of requiring almost a state of the art machine to run decently.

Funny thing is . . .
By Denigrate on 5/14/2008 1:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
that we all read the article. Those who hate Vista for no good reason, and those who think Vista is just fine all read the article. To those who want this hack job journalism to stop here, don't read the crap article.

I used to hate vista
By jax1492 on 5/14/2008 1:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
I was on the I hate vista bandwagon but then i got my new laptop and installed vista ultimate and it wasn't so bad. I will still not recommended it as an upgrade to anyone but for new pc purchases its fine.

By 306maxi on 5/14/2008 1:50:02 PM , Rating: 2
Businesses don't adopt new OS'es for at LEAST 2-3 years after the initial release. So lets say Windows 7 is out in 2 years. That means businesses will be holding onto XP for another 4-5 years. Pull the other one Jason.....

People act like businesses have always adopted new OS'es at launch. They never have and never will adopt new OS'es at launch.

By mcp555 on 5/14/2008 3:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
He states, "We're seeing tremendous transition to Vista, particularly in the consumer space."

Gee considering the fact that they pulled XP from pretty much any machine a consumer would buy I guess that's not such a big surprise.

I work for an automotive group and we have a hard enough time getting our users to find "Printers and Faxes" or how to send/receive emails and management sees any IT-related expenditure as just that, an expenditure.

The manufacturers are not supporting Vista anyhow so we continue to run XP and IE 6. In fact Reynolds and Reynolds only recently adapted their client software to run on Vista but they aren't taking any tech-support calls if you're running Vista.

By hans007 on 5/14/2008 4:09:14 PM , Rating: 2
What is sad is my computers at home and work all run XP.

but as a software engineer who primarily codes windows services for the enterprise, it would be a LOT easier if everyone moved to vista.

there are a lot of hacks you have to do to be "secure" in xp not to mention new and much better APIs that are only available for vista or 2008.

The non-upgrading to vista, really is i'd say slowing down development. Which is sad, since I'm not a huge fan of vista as a normal OS, it just is more well thought out to develop for, since XP basically had a lot of "hacks" to patch it up whcih made some things hard to do since they are not considered secure anymore.

What a one sided article
By BN420 on 5/14/2008 9:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
MY GOD could you write a article any more one sided ?

Yes there are issues with vista the same as there's still issues with XP and OSX no piece of software is perfect.

I've been running vista since beta and currently have 2 rigs running vista ultimate x64 and 1 on xp pro sp3 and i can tell you i much prefer vista now.

Its just as stable as xp sp3 and has alot more handy features than xp ever had.

Sure theres been a few issues here and there most of them we're hardware vendors drivers tho like nvidia and realtek who have taken almost 15+ months to finally release a decent driver.

I guess its easy to blame Microsoft tho and rubbish vista.

Business has always been slow to adopt software changes and new OSes nothing new there.

-1 for article because its too one sided, and doesn't point out this happens every time theres a new OS released.

Read this!
By crystal clear on 5/15/2008 4:14:46 AM , Rating: 2
Developers target XP over Vista by wide margin

May 14, 2008 (Computerworld) Stymied by a lack of user interest in Microsoft Vista, many North American developers are still not targeting the new operating system when writing new applications, according to a survey released today. The survey did find that some growth in Vista development will come in 2009.

Only 8% of the 380 developers surveyed by Evans Data Corp. in April are writing applications for Vista, while 49% are still writing applications primarily for the predecessor Windows version, XP. In addition, 11% said applications are mostly for Windows 2003, while 9% are focused on Linux-based apps.

Because of some well-publicized problems with Vista, many developers have taken a "wait and see" approach before deciding to write applications that can take advantage of new features in Vista, said John Andrews, president and CEO of Evans Data.

"The general theme has been a slower uptake [of Vista] in the user market so most people at the corporate enterprise and commercial world are staying with XP," Andrews said.

"Open-source alternatives like Linux continue to take on interest," he added. "MacOS is also acquiring significant interest among North American developers. Although unlikely to displace Windows volume, MacOS experienced 50% growth as a primary development platform and 380% growth as a targeted platform during the period."

Microsoft did not reply to a request for comment.

The survey also found that 29% of the developers surveyed will primarily target XP next year, with 24% targeting Vista. Overall, 67% of developers will primarily target a Windows version while 15% write applications for Linux.

"[Developers] see a market shift from XP to Vista and that is why they are saying they are going to be moving from XP to Vista [in 2009]," he added.

The survey also found that:

More than half of North American developers are using agile development techniques.
About two-thirds plan to use agile development processes next year.
Microsoft Visual SourceSafe continues to be the most used application life-cycle management software.
Two-thirds of North American developers address security issues during the initial planning and design stages of a project.

XP is the best
By sexp on 5/15/2008 4:35:04 AM , Rating: 2
XP has two major benefits over Vista for Corporates

1.Cheaper Hardware.

If Corporates can get the same work done at cheaper cost than why pay more.

By Dribble on 5/15/2008 5:34:26 AM , Rating: 2
To say people will avoid vista and go straight to windows 7 because they expect it to work perfectly on release day is just rubbish. It'll almost certainly have exactly the same problems as vista when it comes out (need faster hardware, not work properly for a year or two). This has been the case for most big MS o/s releases since windows 3.1. Why should this suddenly change for windows 7?

Umm.. this is a reach..
By Punge on 5/15/2008 9:52:39 AM , Rating: 2
Mike Nash, a corporate vice-president at Microsoft, disputes that Vista is struggling in business. He points out that Bank of America, Continental Airlines, Cerner, and Royal Dutch Shell have all adopted the OS.

I work at Shell and Vista is in a pilot program right now with less than 1000 users. And while Shell does plan on going to Vista their are significant application integration issues that they are experiencing with Vista. I would not be suprised for them to pull out and go to XP in a year if they are unable to resolve the technical issues they face.

Vista woes
By billg1745 on 5/15/2008 11:20:51 AM , Rating: 2
The very nature of this conversation demonstrates the huge costs Microsoft has imposed on business. Microsoft refuses to listen to its "customers" and so delivers products that fail to meet their needs. The reason is that their real customers are the hardware manufacturers who need to drive sales. Only this time, it didn't work.

With more gargarbe like this
By bangmal on 5/17/2008 2:46:09 AM , Rating: 2
This site is turning into a joke.

You've got to be kidding
By Wayne on 5/20/2008 7:08:59 PM , Rating: 2
While Microsoft is such a sales juggernaut that it can weather below average sales, it always strives for excellence, which has earned it its market position.

I've been using Microsoft operating systems since DOS 2.0 was new, used every version of DOS, and every version of Windows from 3.0 to XP (except for ME). From what I've seen the last thing Microsoft strives for is excellence.

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki