Reports: Intel to skip Vista upgrade

For any given release of Windows, there are companies that choose to skip it. But when the company is Intel, it's a big deal.

Following a report Monday on the Inquirer, the New York Times reported Wednesday that Intel's IT department "found no compelling case" for upgrading. Ouch.

And that's despite the fact that it's been nearly seven years since XP debuted. It's not a good thing, if your customers are electing to stick with 7-year-old technology. (In fairness, XP did get a fairly big update with Windows XP Service Pack 2, but even that is four years old at this point.)

Microsoft, which once predicted businesses would adopt Vista at twice the rate they moved to XP, has scaled back its ambitions and these days talks a lot about how long the adoption curve is for businesses when it comes to new operating systems.

[JCPayne]

Thank you for proving my constant point which is that Microsoft's predictions are no-better than anybody else's and this shows you just-that yet again. For some reason, just because some top-brass at Microsoft predict something all of the media run and jump saying it is practically the "gospel truth" and it will happen-- etc. and this proves to everyone that no it doesn't always happen that way. Microsoft can predict and be off the mark just like anybody else.

[ralfthedog]

If the operating system does not provide functionality that is vital to your operations, it is irresponsible to upgrade. For a 97 year old great grandmother that might be a pretty new interface with happy bouncing icons. For a corporation that might be a smaller memory or hard drive footprint, using less clock cycles with lower hardware requirements or the ability to address more memory and a larger hard drive.

.

I would guess that Vista only covers the last one. If Vista were to have better backwards compatibility with Windows 2000 and DOS, it might be worth the upgrade.

One thing corporate IT departments should be thinking about is "Upgrading in place." Back up all the critical user data on every computer, format each drive, and install a fresh copy of XP. This would probably give a far larger boost to performance and reliability.

[LOGIKonline]

It is a big deal that Intel, from the WinTel combo, chose not to upgrade but not a huge suprise - after using Vista. Vista is a "bridge OS" for Microsoft - but many will argue "to what?". The answer is quite obvious for many developer's but not to the companies and end users; a Streaming Application Framework.

What is a "Streaming Application Framework"? Imagine a platform which can be defined like the ease of HTML, married to the definable data heirarchy of XML and backed by the power of Microsoft's developer tools (the true value behind Microsoft - not their apps). All this is currently evolving on the internet BUT we have not taken this to the OS; only to the browser.

Instead Vista exploited the legacy code (pushing demands on hardware to new highs) and put down some key infrastructure to allow them to make(test) the next step. As IT managers realize this - they understand it is a smart choice to wait for the next OS - as the performance will be much more noticable (better processors and richer thin clients) - which will lead to considerable app development/advancements. From vector to data mining, the new OS will set itself apart leading into features that are unreachable in the current methods.

Of course, Microsoft can muck a release just like the rest of them - but I bet that beast will not go down without one heck of fight. We are not talking about a couple hundred devs - and I will assume they have the vision to pull it off.

[technewsjunkie]

So Vista's failure is a grand plan? Keep drinking the Koolaid.

[jerseejohn]

Or - just take a look at the Macintosh operating system... they seem to have already pulled off an incredibly efficient model without taxing the hardware as Vista does. The only thing Mac fails on is price-point. But with fully functional compatibility with Microsoft Exchange 2007 in their next OS, there's no reason why businesses couldn't start making the change to a more stable OS.

[LOGIKonline]

from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95. Then Windows 98 to Win2000. Not sure I am drinking Koolaid - but since I bought OS X, it gives me nothing that XP doesn;t already give me - except for another OS with a weak list of applications and non-business focus environoment. Vista's failure is NOT a grand plan... it is a migration. Perhaps if you were a developer - you would understand each step forward, is not always a clean step.

[somone_else]

I still can't get over these arguments being used. All software will be stored online. hd movies will be downloaded, not bought on a physical disc. Until the infrastructure requirements are built, or a new way of delivering internet access is developed it just isn't going to happen. If you live in a rural area, your options for hi-speed internet are very limited. obviously if you live somewhat close to a major population centre, they may not be as limited. Do you really think these companies are going to say, "we are only going to sell our products to people who live in big cities." or "if you can't afford high speed internet, we don't want your business" It doesn't make sense to do this. Especially when you consider that less then 60% of american households have broadband access.

[tehrani625]

I just bought a new gateway FX laptop on line. I am somewhat woried about using vista with iTunes and then trying to use it as a day to day maching because it is more of just a gaming maching then anything elce. I am hoping that they don't minde if I over clock it. As far as I know I am assuming that vista is a bridge to windows 7. I am also not sure whether it is worth the mony to upgrade to windows vista ultimate edition.

[LOGIKonline]

hold out... XP is solid and ur not missing anything.

[SixVodkas]

It's amusing, hearing the same, sad 'Softy song after every Windows release.

"Yeah, so I waited 5 years for this and it s**ks, but just you wait! In 5 more years the next version will blow your mind!".

Lather, rinse and repeat.

[Laserdisc]

That's so true... We went from craptastic Windows 3.1 to the fantastic Windows NT. And history repeats itself... Windows 9x to Windows 2000. Except with XP people kinda migrated over to it from Win2k without really much of a hassle. Unlike Vista which is in my opinion a "sloppy" OS.

[LOGIKonline]

Not sure I remeber people saying this after Windows 95, Windows 2000, and Windows XP. The OS is often blamed for driver issues; which before Microsoft - really was mute since Windows was the first to roll so many software drivers into an OS. I have tried to convert to OS X (using the MacBookPro) - but when I need to get work done, I return to Windows.

[JadedGamer]

My experience with Vista is from my Vista-64 Home Premium partition on a MacBook Pro. It is a resource hog beyond belief - even just starting the fancy user interface makes the fans spin up something fierce. And if I actually want to run any applications I can forget about running on battery - whenever I try that the machine simply turns off because the power demand is too high. Compared to the kind and yet just as good-looking Mac OS X it is a mystery how they have managed to make something as resource-wasteful ass that OS. Not to mention that the "security" provided by the confirmation dialogs whenever you want to do something just trains people to accept the warning without reading it...

Good for Intel that they skip it. Maybe even some of the "promised" Vista elements like WinFS and proper EFI support will appear in Windows 7...

[WileySkier]

Seriously? :| I run Vista Ultimate on a Dell Lat 820 with 5 or 6 instances of Visual Studio, a multiple internet browsers, Outlook, etc and do not have problems. In fact, I'm much more productive on Vista than XP. Are you sure you're not running Vista in a virtually?

[Jelly Baby]

I'm not too sure that Vista is the problem - it might have more to do with the MacBook than the OS.
I waited until SP1 arrived before moving to Vista 64 bit from XP and even then I installed onto a new drive and kept my XP OS bootable so I could just try out the slow, buggy, driverless resource hog that Vista was reported to be.
Since then I have very rarely had to boot XP, and when I have I'm appaleed at how slow and clunky it all seems. Vista 64 bit has been smooth and easy to intal and run and very fast, seems to release resources much more rapidly than XP did (possibly due to driver signing??) and, with the exception of my sound card, loaded drivers for all my hardware without any problem. Swapping my C-media card for an older Sound Blaster fixed the audio driver problem without any problem.
Surely I'm not the only one who actually managed to get Vista running well on my PC and who finds it a useful upgrade from XP?

[technewsjunkie]

So a LOT hangs on Windows 7, a huge gamble, to save Wintel users PCs from obsolescence.

By the time W7 comes out (!??) people will be desperate for a modern OS for their aging PCS.

This is the problem with monopolies that too many of us rely on. What if Windows 7 stinks!!?

[Laserdisc]

I think it's safe to assume that Windows 7 will not completely and utterly SUCK. Alot of reputable people are behind the Windows 7 initiative at Microsoft. Windows 7 is more or less a HUGE Vista fix, taking the best Vista has to offer while discarding the rest.

[freemarket--2008]

I wouldn't count on being able to run Win 7 on older PCs. I have not seen that promised or even implied anywhere. It may end up being a bit leaner than Vista, but probably not by much.

[MadLyb]

Vista was simply too focused on the consumer, with tons of overhead not needed in a Corporate environment. It's time for MS to truly modularize the OS and make versions that really fit the need of the target audience.

Oh, and go back to the drawing board on Aero. It was a freakin' disaster.

[bdaughtry]

The biggest problem is software does not match up to hardware. What I mean is the current PCs with their dual-core processors are just now beginning to provide a satisfactory experience with Windows XP......forget it with Vista.....no matter how many processors, how fast, or how much memory you have. Vista still sucks because it's too bloated and inefficient. But, then again so is XP. It's just that the hardware finally caught up with XP.

To the poster that recommended an "upgrade in place", that is in fact the most intelligent recommendation yet and speaks to a bigger, less understood problem with Microsoft operating systems.....degrading performance over time because of their pathetic internal housekeeping. This I believe is the single largest reason for most new system purchases.

[Jelly Baby]

I don't think the problem lies in a system fault - other than perhaps a less than perfect software removal process. I've always tries to install an OS, add the applications which I want to use and then leave well alone. It's only when I start playing with new software trials, don't like them and remove them a few times that I find performance starts to drop off.
The amount of time it takes to restore system functionality after doing a clean install (even with slipstreamed service packs and patches) makes me very wary of recomending it as a solution to anything other than the most completely messed up installation.

[pdskep]

Wrong, wrong and....wrong. I built a machine with a Intel dual core (not extreme) and 4 GB of RAM that runs on 32-bit Vista. My machine runs lightning fast with absolutely no problems and rarely use more than 50% of my RAM. For the 6 months I've had it I have had no hick-ups or crashes. It is the best OS experience I've ever had. I have no idea why people keep spreading this FUD.

[The_Decider]

@pdskep You are flat out wrong. Put XP on that machine and you will notice the bloat that Vista has. You have nothing to compare it to and wouldn't you like around 50% of that used RAM to be available for real work(ie not the OS)? If you are going to try and dispute a well known fact try to do it with more then a short sighted empirical observation.

[michael_o]

The biggest problem with Vista is that it introduces some number of problems. Depending upon whom one speaks to these can range from a small number to a very large number; my experience is the latter. But, for both consumers and enterprise customers, it doesn't seem to produce any appreciable benefits. Literally ... nothing. Anything Vista does XP already does (runs programs! connects to the Internet!) or can easily be modified to do; even the eye-candy is easy enough to replicate with third-party software. But Vista is slower, considerably less stable, requires new drivers, uses more memory and CPU, and isn't backwards compatible with many common peripherals.

[42istheanswer]

Clean install of Vista is the way to go. If you are going to make the switch. I've been using Vista for 1.25 years and I am not pleased with it. Driver issues, printing issues, hardware compatibility, etc. I recommend staying with XP for as long as you can. The upgrade to Vista is not worth the hassle or $. I'm actually starting to recommend Mac to new users. Windows is starting to look like the slow behemoth that it actually is. We just need the gaming companies to get on board. It's the only reason I use a Windows machine.

[Zaunto]

It is a very telling statement when the company hardware company responsible for the PC Hardware standards, isn't going to use the OS that requires so much from the hardware that you have to buy a new computer just to run it. On a dual core Compaq with 2gb of Ram doing absolutely nothing, 1gb of ram is in use. AND THIS IS A VISTA BASIC MACHINE WITH NO AERO!!!! No matter what they plan on doing with Windows 7, I'm getting a Macbook Pro. Microsoft Office and Open Office both run on the Mac, so I can work with that. When I need to game, I'll reboot into Windows XP with Boot camp. Bill is gone. It's over for Microsoft....

[sal-magnone]

What, their i945 cards not up to running Aero?

Considering the flack MSFT took (internally and externally) for saying that the 945 chipset was suitable for Aero, this is jab in the back - not that one can't expect these things, but I expect at joint meetings the only thing that'll be warm above the management level will be the coffee.

In any case, I don't see the lower number of upgrades as a problem for MSFT. They have already made an unbelievable amount of $ on VISTA. I see this as typical. Corps aren't keen to upgrade desktop OS anymore. The ones they got already do what they need to. The server-side is where the action is, Windows Server, Exchange, Sharepoint, and MSSQL.

[The_Decider]

"unbelievable amounts of money"? Only if you consider that when someone buys a computer, companies expand using their license, MS counts it as a Vista sale, even if it never runs Vista. MS has to fudge numbers to make it look like a success, but in every measure, especially the most important, technical measures, it is a total failure.

[awicurrent]

One issue that Microsoft just does not get, is that users do NOT want to change from what they know. Yes they like new features that add to what they can do, but they do not want to have to learn a new way or a new place to find what they already knew in the old operating system. Corporations hate going down that learning curve as well as it reduces efficiency in a big way until everyone is used to the new ways of doing the same old thing!

[barrie.b]

Yes, I totally agree with this comment. Just because Microsoft (or anyone else, for that matter) can do something does not mean that they should do it. Some time back, I had Windows ME removed from a new PC (because it would not do what I bought it to do) and had 98SE installed. Then, everything worked perfectly, and I still have that PC as a stand-by, because it will run applications and games that later Operating Systems just cannot run. Please learn from this

[doctorsoos]

Vista Ultimate 64 on E6850 3.0 OC'd to 3.6Ghz w/4Gb memory = runs smooth. Only issue I have is drivers which (shame on your companies) should have already been either out or under development with betas available for audio hardware as well as other hardware. At least I am beta testing (finally) my audio driver for the PCI 24bit card I have. But as far as the OS is concerned I am running Aero and it's performance stats test I ran came in at average 5.8 out of 5.9 with the 5.8 only on one test of the 5 it runs. I don't know why some people ***** that it runs slow on their systems. Even at stock speed Vista Ultimate 64 runs smoothly w/Aero enabled.

[Laserdisc]

Microsoft did fumble the ball with Vista but it wouldn't have been such a HUGE upset if the fricking companies did their job in developing stable/fast drivers for their hardware AND they had 3-4 YEARS to write them!
I believe it was the hardware companies not Microsoft that made Vista such a horrible experience for most users. I've seen systems with slower specs run Vista faster than computers with BETTER specs all because the faster system had crappy drivers installed and non-else were available.

[Dalkorian]

"Vista Ultimate 64 on E6850 3.0 OC'd to 3.6Ghz w/4Gb memory = runs smooth."
Holy cow, I should hope so. That much computer should be greased lightning, but I'm guessing it's nothing more than "smooth". Do yourself a favor, set aside a small partition on your HD and just try a Linux distro (Ubuntu is easy and my favorite, but there are others worthy of looking at). You'll be amazed at what that super computer of yours is capable of when it's not tripping over amazing amounts of OS bloat and DRM crapware.

[Zaunto]

No one should have to buy and run a 3.0 CPU/ 4GB RAM equipped PC just to run Vista 32bit. Vista 64 bit is an entirely different system. The majority of typical users aren't trying to run a 64 bit OS with 64 bit apps. Your comparison doesn't mean anything to someone trying to run Vista Basic on a PC with 1GB of Ram sold to a consumer that way because Microsoft has a "Vista Capable" sticker on it. I found out first hand that Vista REQUIRES no less than 2gb of ram because just sitting idle, it uses 1GB of ram doing NOTHING!!

[The_happy_switcher]

Ha ha (Said in my best Nelson Munce voice). Further proof that Vista is a major bowzer and nobody wants this POS. People will have to wait for the next polished turd to come down the pike, aka, Windows 7. What a loser company. Buy AAPL and switch to OS X and leave the misery behind.

[LOGIKonline]

ome of us bought into the advertising... and now we run Windows in Bootcamp - since Apple is still a toy. Sure it is pretty... but when it comes to getting actual work done, Windows is more work friendly. XP never crashes and all applications run on it - and everyone knows it. Apple could've been great - if they had a different developer focus (and open platform exchange) 15 years ago.

[Heebee Jeebies]

Lets face it, there just isn't very much to impress with Vista. The things they did to make it more "secure" end up making it a pain for the user. They should have just fixed the potholes in the thing instead of putting a new road over the top of them. People complain that Windows Me is the worst OS. I couldn't disagree more. We didn't wait 7 years for Me and then have this kind of disappointment. There are so many little things missing or that need to be improved in Windows that it isn't funny that Microsoft can't see this. Vista is cold and very user unfriendly, they multiple versions are a rip-off, I am still waiting for a compelling reason for forking out the money for Ultimate, I don't feel I have gotten with in a country mile getting what I paid for. If it wouldn't cost me almost $10,000 to replace my current PC with a Mac would be so out of here.

[cross platform]

Once again I did a clean install ( which just basically means I turned off most of the start up items in msconfig ) and got a good intall on my 4 year old Gateway ( P 4 3.2 Ghz ). Also I did my homework. I upgraded the RAM to 2 gigs ( which is pretty standard now ) and I upgraded my Video card to a Nvidia 7800 GS OC. It was the fastest offered in AGP. I don't have PCI express. I've been using it ever since and now have SP1. Everything seems to run fine. There's the occasional hiccup. But it's much less than it was with XP SP2.

[The_happy_switcher]

How many people who won PCs are going to jump through the hoops that you have or have your knowledge to put up with that much hassle to get their OS to work right? Answer: Not many. Just the nerds.

[DevTop]

My first attempt to upgrade to Vista on a 2-year-old PC right after Vista was released was a huge failure and waste of time. Just too many key software and hardware incompatibilities, plus the performance was like swimming in mud. Last week I bought a new laptop with Vista, and my results were much better. There were still many issues, but with time and patience, I've been able to resolve them all. But this is my job. I feel sorry for any regular user that must muddle through VIsta and what by now should be a truly plug n' go system.

Microsoft has one more chance with Windows 7, but if you read early reports, it's simply Vista with a few improvements. We are witnessing the fall of an empire, folks.

[Vegaman_Dan]

This is an interesting story. It's written in such a way as to suggest that Windows won't run on an Intel-based system. Intel isn't 'skipping' Windows- it supports it just fine. They have chosen not to use some of the features available to chip designers. That's their option. Unfortunately it affects the end product and the consumer's experience, but that's the choice of the OEM, not the OS maker.

[pactrol]

Hi

Why is Microsoft supprized by this ? Vista has no Backward compatibility
in industry ther are still dos applications working merrily away Xp can run dos
Vista can,t so what good is that to industry when theres no compatibility with
existing software. & I used to think MS were smart, not dumb & dumber,