Microsoft: Do give Vista a try
Following the beta release of Windows 7, Microsoft is sending the message to companies not to give Vista a miss, saying investments toward adopting the OS can be reused when Windows 7 is ready.
The business edition of Windows Vista
(Credit: Microsoft)Speaking at a press demo session of Windows 7 beta, Richard Francis, general manager, Windows client BG lead, business and marketing organization, Asia-Pacific region at Microsoft, said companies are "encouraged" to upgrade to Windows Vista after predecessor XP, instead of waiting for Windows 7 to be released.
"Certainly, there will be some companies that will decide to skip Vista and wait for Windows 7. But we are asking customers to continue and deploy Windows Vista," said Francis.
He explained that the software giant prioritized "easing migration" from Vista to 7, so "migrating to 7 will build upon (earlier) migration efforts to Vista" for enterprises.
Touting the security features of Vista, he said it should provide a safer environment for companies above XP. He added that these features such as the User Account Control tool, although contributing to a "safer" OS, were "annoying for users" and are able to be customized in 7.
Francis noted that the device compatibility issues which plagued Vista are not expected to be an issue with Windows 7. "When Vista came out, there were only 22,000 compatible devices with the right drivers. Now there are 78,000, so there is better support from the ecosystem," he said.
On current XP users considering paying for extended support as mainstream support reaches its April 2009 deadline, Francis said it is "too soon to say" how many will opt for that, but added that "there is no leading indicator for now that they will do so."
"A lot of customers have refreshed their machines which are Vista-capable, so they should not have issues moving to Vista," he stated.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has said that companies can wait for Windows 7, but also encouraged users to migrate to Vista.
Victoria Ho of ZDNet Asia reported from Singapore.
Keeping these in mind I would be hoping that the next release of Windows 7 would be developed keeping in view the importance of these aspects from the academic perspective.
I can only agree. Time to migrate to a unix-based system with a small fraction of the security problems.
Time to migrate to Mac OS.
I DON'T WANT VISTA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(crying....)
I WANT WINDOWS 7 DADDY!!!!!!!!!
Suckers!
XP is still a viable OS today, but using history as our guide I would say that most people should move on before XP when XP goes into the extended support phase of the product life. A lot of businesses moved away from older versions of NT because MS would label some issue as minor on older OSs and critical on the new OS (ie. the new OS gets the update and the old OS does not). In a business environment the idea that there are publicly known security issues that the vendor has no intention on fixing isn't acceptable. For this reason I expect to start seeing more machines in the enterprise world move to Vista for this reason alone this year.
Anyone who is seriously criticizing MS for this is either ignorant of MS history or simply is whining about things that they knew were coming.
However, if you can wait a while for a new PC, I suggest that you wait until Windows 7 comes out. The beta is very, very promising, and already feels more polished and complete than Vista ever did. The UI is greatly enhanced, UAC is much less annoying, and the performance on older hardware is greatly improved. I'd have to see actual benchmarks to see how it compares to XP on identical hardware, but just by my own observation, it's greatly improved.
Oh, and don't count on the "improvements" being applied to Vista. Why should they? Vista's got a bad rep, and it needs to die so Microsoft can move on. Trying to enhance it in its current state would definitely result in a Windows Me type disaster. Besides, they already made that mistake with XP, allowing WMP11, IE7, and Windows Defender to run on it without requiring the upgrade to Vista. That's partly why so many people decided not to upgrade to Vista, because aside from the security and the mostly useless Aero eye candy, all the new goodies that actually offered new functionality were already available for XP. Microsoft shot themselves in the foot because they failed to limit new features to the new OS, which is one of the biggest motivators for users to upgrade.
If you can't wait a while for a new PC, I'd suggest trying out a different OS. I mentioned two viable choices in my previous paragraph. If you choose one with Linux, I'd suggest starting with Ubuntu, it's user friendly and it's supported by a few hardware manufacturors. It may not be what every Linux user has on his/her desktop but it's a great first step and it works incredibly well, especially when compared to Vista or even some XP installations. I've done a personal test on exactly the same hardware with XP and Ubuntu and have seen that, with a smaller system footprint, Ubuntu kicks XPs ass and has a gorgeous look to it that I just haven't seen with a Windows OS.
As for improvements. A good OS will sell itself without the bells and whistles. Vista added in the eye candy and some security features which were long overdo but other than that, what functionality did it add? It forces an upgrade to your hardware, it still isn't 100% compatible with all new hardware so it requires the user be more knowlegable about what they're buying than XP requires. When switching to Ubuntu from XP I needed to be a bit more knowlegable than I did when I had XP. The difference between switching to Vista versus switching to Ubuntu? With Vista, I would have had to pay to be told that I had to upgrade my sysytem to get full functionality, I would have had to search my hardware to make sure it's compatible with Vista and I still would have had to do the routine actions necessary for most users of a Windows system. With Ubuntu, I paid for the CD that I burned the copy of the OS onto. My hardware worked right away except my wifi card, which worked after the first update which happened right after I installed the OS. If there were a problem with the hardware, most likely that same problem would be either explained in the forums or given a workaround in the forums and would be easily searchable on Google and for full functionality, I can use my current system with no hardware upgrade required. With 512 Mbs RAM, 1.8 Ghz CPU (single processor) and a 127 gig hdd, I have a fully functional, modern OS which makes my system scream like never before. The biggest motivator to upgrade to W7 for me? Are they paying people the money they used to charge for all the "extras" the OEMs have thrown in yet? When they pay me the price of a new System to deal with the headaches, then I'll get one. Otherwise, my old system will keep running like anything that's currently Vista-"capable".
Bottom line, Vista is a bitter pill most people had to swallow... but if given a choice 90% of the people would rather stay with Win XP...
I've used Vista on multiple machines for almost three years(ie. since before it came out) and I can say that except for installing drivers, which is something I might do every couple months I rarely see any UAC prompts on a day to day basis. I think that the complaints about UAC get WAY overblown insofar as that they rely on ignorance of the benefits and hyperbole in how frequent the prompts really occur. If the concept of admin privileges confuses you go back to Windows 98!
Yeah, right...Of course Microsoft is trying to push Vista...
It is fully compatible with the software and hardware I use.
It is much more visually pleasant than XP.
It has a lot of nice features I like, like better integrated search and easier switching between windows.
It has good X64 support (although XP might have been good at that too, back then I had an X86 processor)
It is plenty fast on my machine. I have a mid range core 2 with 4 gigs of RAM.
The only reason to use XP is if you have older hardware (or an atom processor) that would make Vista sluggish. In general, Vista has a bad rap, and people who bash it haven't tried it lately or are just MS haters.
That Vista has a bad rap, frankly, is Microsoft's own fault.
Haven't Tried it? I have tried it and while it is OK it gives me nothing I can't get with most modern OS's these days. MS hater? Well, I don't think it is that I hate MS. It is just that I finally got fed up with their promises that everything would be better with the next release.
Windows 7 does look very nice and so far has been stable on my IBM. It has a nice feature set, but then again it is nothing that is not available elsewhere. As for security, Windows 7 will be no more or less secure than any of the other MS operating systems. The only way MS will ever make Windows really secure is to do what Apple did with OS X and that is to drop all this backwards compatibility crap and design Windows with security as the first priority instead of ease of use.
I have a 3gh HT processor and 2gb of RAM in my IBM and Windows 7 runs very nicely on it. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that the beta is the equivalent of the Ultimate version and not the home version. As such it will have some things that will not be present in the version most people end up with. The price for the Ultimate version is totally ridiculous.
To summarize, if you are running XP, are not having any major problems, and don't need a new computer right now then you "should" skip Vista and wait for Windows 7. If you are buying a new computer go ahead and get it with Vista. After working with Vista and now working with the Windows 7 beta I have to say that while both are nice there is just no compelling reason for me to return to the Windows fold. Neither one gives me anything that I have not had for several years now using OS X and BSD/Linux based systems.
That's a very well stated and well rounded point. I'm glad to see there's someone on CNET today with a brain who is willing to use it to make a good argument.
The interface is terrible, it is wasteful of space on screen as well as space on the HDD.
The new Explorer and Internet Explorer interfaces are terrible.
I have the little arrow-based address bar too, Microsoft, and better.
The only reason Vista is more secure is for the idiots, it is "idiot-proof", to an extent.
And don't say the whole UAC thing, the only thing is now whenever you want to do something, you get nagged, and nagscreens tend to always end up getting clicked away, regardless of the result.
Microsoft: breeding clickoholics.
There is absolutely nothing for me in Vista.
I'll wait, if you don't mind Microsoft.
Although, in saying that, Win7 so far is looking to be Vista SP3... hurray for putting a new splash of paint on things.
Prove me wrong Microsoft, prove me wrong. Make me eat my words, i'm hungry.
I know quite a few idiots who have just clicked and ended up with a dead computer.
UAC != good security. It is nagware with permissions.
Goodbye forever Windows.
-
by Falling-Inferno
January 26, 2009 8:40 AM PST
- With the release of Windows 7 I am just wondering what they [Linux Developers] are doing seeing as I have used Ubuntu and Gentoo and OpenSuse and Loved them all with security, design, advanced features for the person who loves to control every aspect of there computer, enthusiastic free support people (Myself used to be one of them) But then it falls short. The interface and lack of help for the moron users (My Mom being one of them) as well as the complicated installation and the fact that Computer companies are not backing it (Dell, Gateway ect) as well as the reason why Mac OS or Linux isn't DOMINATING right now is due to the fact Games.
-
Reply to this comment
-
(29 Comments)