August 15, 2007 12:01 PM PDT

A bump on the road to Windows Vista

Businesses that had been thinking of a quick move to Windows Vista may be rethinking things a bit, according to a new study by Forrester Research.

"IT managers are finding themselves pulling back their initial Windows Vista deployment plans," Forrester analyst Benjamin Gray said in a report issued this week.

That said, Forrester notes in the first line of its report that it's not like most businesses are really going to skip over Vista.

"For the vast majority of businesses, Windows Vista is a matter of when and how, not if," Gray wrote. "This is thanks in large part to Microsoft's dominance in the corporate client operating system market."

While Linux has made considerable inroads in the server world and Apple has been able to substantially boost its market share in the consumer market, the corporate desktop remains solidly in Microsoft's domain.

But Microsoft has made the case that not only will businesses adopt Vista, they will do so quite quickly.

In September, Brad Goldberg, general manager for Windows Client product management, predicted that Vista would be put in use by twice as many businesses in the first year as Windows XP was in the 12 months following its October 2001 release.

Research firm IDC said that Windows XP usage was at 10 percent after a year in release. But IDC analyst Al Gillen said in September, talking about Vista, that "for them to do 20 percent in the first 12 months of availability is almost impossible."

Though slower Vista adoption would be a strategic blow to Microsoft, the financial impact could be muted, so long as businesses and consumers keep buying new PCs and its volume license business remains strong.

Forrester finds that many businesses are focused on issues like making sure they move to Vista before support runs out on older operating systems. Windows 2000 remains in the extended support phase until July 2010, while Windows XP remains in mainstream support through April 2009, and in extended support until 2014.

"When it comes to Windows Vista, Microsoft's biggest competitor isn't Apple, Novell, Red Hat or Ubuntu (just to name a few)--it's Microsoft itself," Gray wrote. "Businesses have, for the most part, been running either Windows 2000 or Windows XP for the past four or five years. These (operating systems) are mature, thoroughly tested and have been proven 'good enough,' making the business case for Windows Vista even harder for a lot of companies."

Another area of concern for businesses is the lack of specificity around the first service pack for Windows Vista. Although Microsoft has been making the case--and Forrester concurs--that SP1 need not be a critical milestone, some businesses are awaiting that release before migrating their machines to Vista.

"Most of the IT managers we spoke with cited SP1 as the reason they have yet to seriously consider deploying Windows Vista into their respective companies," Gray wrote. "Whether right or wrong, experience tells IT managers that the first service pack is Microsoft's official blessing that the new OS is complete."

Microsoft has not said exactly when that release will be available. It did say, as part of an antitrust settlement court filing, that a beta version will be out this year, but it has not said when the final version will be issued.

And, although Microsoft initially touted the ability of older programs to run smoothly on Vista as a strength of the new operating system, Gray notes that "application compatibility doesn't look as good as we had hoped."

"We heard application compatibility success rates that ranged from as low as 60 percent to as high as 90 percent," Gray wrote, noting that the figures have improved over time.

Also, Gray said that many businesses are finding Vista is not a good bet for their older, but still-in-use PCs. "Hardware compatibility is hard to get around with PCs older than 12 to 18 months," Gray wrote.

See more CNET content tagged:
Forrester Research Inc., information technology manager, Microsoft Windows Vista, Microsoft Corp., service pack

114 comments

Join the conversation!
Add your comment
Vista is just a lame duck OS
I've used it, so this isn't just the "Oh anything Microsoft does sucks" rant. I use Windows Mobile 2003 on my HP PocketPC and XP SP2.

However, Vista is HORRIBLE. It truly is bad by any standard. Some people might find it useful, but as far as I'm concerned, it doesn't do anything I want it to do, and won't run my software, so its not worth using for me. I'll stick with my XP SP2 install dual booted with Linux for now. It works well enough for me, which is what matters. I don't care if 60$% of software is compatible if the software I us isn't.
Posted by limefan913 (129 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Works
I am concerned to see others who can't run their software...despite some early drivers issues, my Vista runs all I have before on XP and then I use Virtual PC to run pre-xp software. It isn't perfect (have weird IE crashes) but it runs all the software and games I have.
Posted by brianwolters (70 comments )
Link Flag
heh
In general the sliding scale depends somewhat on the user and their ability to set vista up correctly in the first place, of all the installs and software I have installed on it none have given me issues and some of the software is out there.

Is it a pain in the ass? Yes, do I use it? No, is it as bad as everyone says it is? No. Most of the BS and misconceptions rose from people who inherently hate Microsoft in the first place. I don't use it because my current PC does not support it and thats probably where MS made their biggest mistake, making system requirements a lot of older and even some new ones can't handle.
Posted by Rimer (24 comments )
Link Flag
Windows XP Home
I've been using XP Home for 4 years now and it has been reasonably stable.I have no intention of switching to Vista.I tried Vista on a friends computer and i want nothing to do with it.I'ed rather buy a Mac before switching to Vista.
Posted by bwtanker (36 comments )
Reply Link Flag
I just bought XP Home
I just bought Windows XP Home to run under VMware's Fusion on my new iMac (24-inch, 2.8 GHz).
This new iMac will replace my PowerMac G5 and I need Windows XP to run IE 7 and WebTrends.
I am glad to hear that XP Home has been successful for you.
Posted by davebarnes (40 comments )
Link Flag
When they pry XP out of my hands
Corporate doesn't allow Vista machiens to attach to the network yet.

And at home, I lose 3 printers, 1 scanner, my external harddrive, 1 external CD burner and an external DVD burner, plus over $1200 in applications software.

Thanks but no thanks. Oh and I already checked with the vender on the three printers and the scanner. They are not going to release new drivers to support those devices. The CD and DVD burner company is out of business, and the external hard drive company I don't trust to give me a valid driver any time soon.
Posted by Mycroft_514 (19 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Tell me all about it! I am in the same boat. As if it is not enough for Microsoft to dominate the market, they will do everything they possible can to kill off other software developers. It is outright immoral! No wonder Europe see fit to punish Microsoft.
Posted by cfay9090 (1 comment )
Link Flag
why?
I have no interest in Windows Vista. And I am not a Mac user. I am not a LINUX user. I use XP at work and have XP at home. I have no reason to convert. All the software I have and use runs fine for me. To run this new OS I would need to upgrade all of my hardware. Why would I spend that money and deal with that hassle. I'm satisfied with what I have. I've never called MS for support, so if they want to pressure me to move on by taking away support - fine, whatever, I don't care, I don't use support.

Now, if the situation were different. If this OS was something like say - more efficient and more streamlined. If it wasn't bloated with useless features. If this new OS didn't have a hundred bundled programs I don't want or need. If the OS ran faster and was more responsive on my existing hardware. And if it wasn't way overpriced. Then maybe I'd consider it.

But that's not the case, and MS continues to misunderstand their customers. They spend all their resources in building the UBER OS and manipulating the market consumer to want it, they have no genuine understanding of what informed consumer's really want.
Posted by baike (39 comments )
Reply Link Flag
...because MSFT needs the dough.
Caveat: I use Linux and OSX. I have zero use for Windows @ home, and very little use for it at work, where my primary desktop --and 95% of the servers I build and use-- are all Linux.

IMHO, Windows users can get everything they need or want with XP. There is no real compelling reason to buck it up for Vista.

Given the increased hardware requirements for Vista, it wouldn't make sense to anyway... it would be far more efficient to just use that bigger, badder machine to run XP if you're settled on Windows.

MSFT of course doesn't see it that way. They need to make money.

Their problem however is two-fold: Users @ home who don't want the teething troubles or bloat, and users @ work who don't want to suddenly see all of their expensive custom apps simply not work anymore, thanks to Vista's attempts at a balancing act.

I could've told you last year (and prolly did) that MSFT was simply dreaming when they asserted 20% adoption of Vista in their market (double the XP adoption rate) by year-end. I hope they weren't betting the bank on that.

Long-term, this will hurt them; they've already spent untold billions on Vista, and it looks like it won't be amortized in time.

Meanwhile, other OSes are not only keeping up in features, but are flying ahead by leaps and bounds.

By the time 'Son of Vista' comes out, I fully expect it to be a full generation behind the capabilities of the (by then) OSX and Linux offerings.

But that's just me.

/P
Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
The last two paragraphs tell it all
My company's issues with Vista reside with compatibility in both hardware and software. We do have older machines that are still in warranty that will not run well with Vista. We also have software that has not yet caught up with Vista that our users use daily and depend on. Microsoft apparently did not consider sharing with other major software vendors prior to developing and finalizing their distribution. Computer Associates, Bentley, Haested all have semi-working versions for Vista. In other words, some functionality is affected negatively. Companies will not make the move until they are sufficiently convinced through testing that their environment will not be adversely affected in any way. We have been testing since Vista's release and have found too many issues to even consider upgrading at least until mid-2008. We even adjusted our Dell Premiere site ordering to Windows XP.
Posted by morningowl (17 comments )
Reply Link Flag
IT Management/Dinosaurs
Time for you old-way folks to retire and let a breathe of fresh air
through your organization.

After a two decades + of Microsoft crap, how can you continue to
support them? If they were a car, you would have sold it off long
ago...

OS X is that fresh air.
Posted by MaLvaDo39 (365 comments )
Reply Link Flag
a breath of air laced with arsenic
Really? You would have a company go through the hassle of buying expensive new computers, then finding or getting a new program made to handle what they need done, then converting their data to work with it, and all for nothing because now you have to train all your employees to use the new system which is nothing like the Windows they used to run.

...Real world economic response: Fat chance...

They would be better off moving to linux if they had to ditch Windows, mainly because you can grab a windows emulator and still have your programs in a linux environment.
Posted by Rimer (24 comments )
Link Flag
next!
I personally think Vista did in fact copy many features already found on Apple's OS X. After so many years and delays they only came up with a new look and several versions and of course the poor customer would have to have a major hardware upgrade and pay top dollar in order to get all the features. Vista is just has a fancy colorful and playful OS targeted more to kids than to a business environment. Like many other windows users I agree windows XP is good enough and there is really no need to upgrade until there is a solid reason why to do so.
Posted by ubnyan (54 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Many businesses still have old computers
In my travels I see many businesses still using Win98 let alone
XP Pro. NT still shows up too. The problem is that Vista has
forced more expensive upgrades than any other operating
system I can think of. Even if you get the basic Vista without the
Areo package.
The memory upgrades may not be possible for 4 or 5 year old
computers. Even if some new computers are on the way. Many
have still opted for XP pro rather than Vista. For every one sold
with XP. It will be that much longer before they adapt Vista. I
really think Microsoft should rethink their versions nextime.
Maybe have a home version and a business version that's it.
I think for a lot of businesses their was just too much bling for
their pocketbook.
Posted by jesmac418 (35 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Bits and Bobs:
[i]"The memory upgrades may not be possible for 4 or 5 year old computers."[/i]

Oh, it is - but it ain't cheap. 1GB of PC-133 SDRAM is almost twice as expensive as expensive 1GB of DDR PC-2700

[i]"Maybe have a home version and a business version that's it."[/i]

They tried that already: Windows NT Workstation vs. Windows 95/98/ME. They discovered that it was expensive and an overall pain in the butt, so they folded NT into Windows 2000 Professional and sold it for home and work use.

/P
Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
MS used to have too many OS versions...
Then they reduced them b"becuase it caused too much user
confusion".

Now, with Vista, they have reversed themselves, again. Mulitple
ver$ion$ of the O$ means money.

That's how you become a billionaire.
Posted by technewsjunkie (1265 comments )
Link Flag
Vista is for home use for now
If you can find me a single company that relies solely on Microsoft Office, I'll recommend Vista to them, but from what I've seen, most businesses rely on at least one piece of software that hasn't been updated to run on Vista. That will be the primary reason (and a good one too) that most companies will wait a while to upgrade.

For home use, however, I have to disagree with most of the comments here. This is my story:
About 6 months ago I managed to get a free copy of Vista Business through some Microsoft academic program and my school. I didn't find it all that different from XP (short of visual themes) but I did manage to have a lot of compatibility issues with drivers and software. I took it off my PC and put it on a shelf.
About a month ago I got a new laptop and it came with Vista Home Premium. I was surprisingly satisfied with it. Every compatibility issue I experienced before had been resolved and I found the Vista experience to be quite enjoyable.
My only complaints about Vista now would be that it does have a bit of a learning curve and that I had to upgrade the RAM on my brand new laptop and my desktop (I re-installed Vista Business).

And for those of you that proclaim Vista is the exact same as OS X, it does still have one unique benifit: an actual selection of software (The whole purpose of a PC?).

The bottom line: I'd recommend that if you are picking up a new system for home use, get one with Windows Vista. Otherwise, it's not worth the price yet.
Posted by tobart (24 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Eh?
[i]"Vista is the exact same as OS X, it does still have one unique benifit: an actual selection of software"[/i]

Eh?

Seriously - I can pretty much do anything on a Mac that you could on Vista. Games I believe is the only serious lag-point.

Now when it comes to running already-purchased software, that's a whole different story. But then, Vista would have a very hard time installing pretty much anything ending in *.dmg or *.rpm or *tar.gz ;)

/P
Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
PC benefit?
Just in case you've been living under a rock for the past year or
so...
Macs can run ALL software now, even Vista, so it seems quite
silly that anyone still claims 'Doze boxes have more software
available to purchase.
Macs=all 'doze ware and Mac OS software, 'Doze boxes have
fewer choices.
Got it?
:-)
Posted by GGGlen (491 comments )
Link Flag
Quality not quantity
one version
Windows vista 64bit

Yep when they do move this should be the one or a Mac and vista to do the bits macs don't.
Either way in the long run microsoft win in this piticular development.

Um year everone should know how to program in 64 bit multicore environments and should be well adversed to the possibilities of cell enviroments.

Opps only human

Mind you if over the next few years people do get onboard well it should be quite cool the whole market over.

Collaberation and well understood individutation is a big key here (isn't it always i say looking down).
Posted by wildchild_plasma_gyro (296 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Correction!
OSX is 64bit, not 100%, but Leopard is. Developers on the Mac
are already doing what you think "vista" developers could be
doing.

I am a programmer, and I have to tell you, it ain't a pretty
picture on the windows side. Windows users are not the only
ones looking at Macs with jealousy, and envy. Developers feel
the same way. I have a beta version of Leopard (OSX), and use
Tiger on another machine. The code I've written, from what I
started learning, allows me to do far more sophisticated
applications, with less code, than it does for me with even C# in
Visual Studio .Net.

Quality is something Microsoft simply does not understand.
Their entire approach is based solely on market manipulation.
Do you really think they give a crap?
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Link Flag
Useless
Vista is like the movies being made today-all flash but no substance.

I use 2000 at work, and have XP Pro at home - these are tried and true Operating Systems (which look pretty good too). I agree with most here-some urgent requirement or development will have to happen to make me give these o/systems up-there is no need to change and waste money on something like Vista at this time, which is essentially an unnecessary and repetitive o/s, that is filled with bells and whistles designed to appeal to the frivilous characteristics of the buyer's psyche.
Posted by k.i.s.s. (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
Totally agree
Companies I worked for still run Office 2000 or 2003 and XP. I run XP at home, but since I got Office 2007 at cheap upgrade price, I use it (don't necessarily like it), but have to save all files to older version format so others can use it. I advise everyone I know to keep their older machines going as long as possible and that there's NO reason to go with Vista yet.
Posted by oxtail01 (308 comments )
Link Flag
Office 2007 adds to the discomfort
I recently had cause to use a copy of Word/Office 2007 to test out compatibilities and find that while Office is obviously a separate software from Vista the 1-2 punch of Vista and the new Office interface is going to keep some users out of the game for a long time to come. The "ribbon" interface for Office, which is essentially a set of oversized tabs, hides vast amounts of the menu items that users could access instantly in older versions of Office by patiently scrolling down menus. In "ribbons" there are no hints about where to find what isn't visible, you will have great difficulty finding familiar editing/formatting commands. I see a great future for Apple in the next 5 years--Microsoft needs to put a lot of reflection into what levels and types of users it has out there and how to serve them, not how to make the packaged product as different as possible from the last...
Posted by Razzl (1318 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Ribbons will choke you
I totally agree. I'm an experienced user of all the Office products and I find the new interface totally unintuitive. Why MS would change a menu system that's been pretty much a standard way for all the Windows programs is beyond me (except to sucker people into upgrading). If you use Excel or Access on a regular basis, you want something that's clean and does not take up a lot of screen real estate.
Posted by oxtail01 (308 comments )
Link Flag
I'm bored
Putting aside compatibility issues for now, Vista does nothing for me either personally or professionally. It's too expensive. It's too bloated. It's too slow. It's too annoying. (Those security pop-ups!) It's too unnecessary to switch. XP truly is good enough! (SP3! Where are you?)

The smartest thing Microsoft can do is reduce the number of Vista versions to just one, (the Ultimate package), with a wizard to allow the end-user or IT person, (using policy controls), to choose which components they want to enable or disable at any time during its lifetime. (At no extra cost!)

Finally, they need to cut the prices at least in half. Four hundred dollars for Vista Ultimate!? Are they nuts!? I thought $200 was steep for XP Pro -- but $400!!! Bad move Microsoft.

I'm convinced that Vista sales would soar if Microsoft did those two things -- hardware and software issues not withstanding.

I betcha!
Posted by albertsoler (412 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Microsoft HAS cut OS prices - in China, India, Mexico...
Not in the USA though.
Posted by technewsjunkie (1265 comments )
Link Flag
Plain and simple...Vista Works.
Bit locker, Enterprise wide power management policy and a huge improvement in security are neither "bells and whistles designed to appeal to the frivolous characteristics of the buyer's psyche" nor "..just has a fancy colorful and playful OS targeted more to kids than to a business environment".

If any of those items, the mobility center, greatly improved tablet functionality or reduction in overall support costs are deemed to be worth the cost and effort, then enterprises will roll it out as they're refreshing hardware.
Posted by webdev511 (254 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Um, how about NO
"Vista Works." What a piece of BS. WinXP coupled with Win2K3 Server is plenty secure if done properly. I don't know where you work but if you have security issues with XP, then they are of your own making, not Microsoft's.

The fact of the matter is that Vista does NOT work in the corporate environment at the moment. Too many applications need to be tested (at least where I work) to make it cost-effective to do until at least SP1 is available. Even then, Server 2008 will be upon us. More testing to be done. Why not wait until we have a complete suite (a much more compelling reason to begin testing both sides of the equasion) to even think about an upgrade. Especially when XP and Win2K3 are mature and stable.
Posted by thenet411 (415 comments )
Link Flag
Yeah, if you ONLY use Office
Yeah of course it works when you only use Microsoft Office and HP printers. If you use any kind of specialized applications or peripherals that aren't "Vista Ready" but still work fine under XP, don't even bother upgrading because you're going to need to upgrade at least half of them.

I had Vista on my machine for two weeks but the incompatibilities and the cost to fix them ran into the thousands so I went back. Why do I need to spend thousands of dollars on stuff that already worked on the previous OS?!?! Which is more critical to me? The applications that make me money or the glossy windows.

The decision was pretty easy after that.
Posted by frankz00 (196 comments )
Link Flag
Umm Yea
Works great if you are 100% Microsoft only software enabled.

The real world does not work that way.
Posted by Thomas, David (1947 comments )
Link Flag
It might work, but it's still pointless
Vista offers nothing of value to the business world, nothing whatsoever.

You'd be a moron to trust it's so-called security. Microsoft, security, excuse me while I rofl.

We use XP because we must. Are OS X and Linux better operating systems? Of course. But on the desktop level the software we use doesn't run on either system, and performs poorly under emulation.

Servers are a different issue, but Vista isn't relevant to servers. Linux for what we can get away with, Server 2003 for the rest.

Vista on the other hand looks pretty. Sorry that's not enough for me to recommend over $10,000 in OS upgrade costs, not to mention the hardware cost we'd need to invest in, just to get our Autodesk and Bentley products to give comparable performance under such a dog of an OS.

Our security products, that's real security not garbage wrapped up in pretty packaging, doesn't work correctly under Vista because Microsoft have refused to allow any but a handful of companies in on their software.

Not particularly encouraging from my point of view, they're definitely willing to put themselves and their wallets ahead of every customer - corporate or otherwise.

So screw 'em. If Autodesk produce Civil 3D 2008 for OS X or Linux, then we'll be heading that way. Otherwise we'll use XP until they stop issuing patches.

Vista is no more secure than XP, has performance issues all over the place - file copying performance has yet to even be properly acknowledged as a fault. And even if you do get them to admit the problem, they have no idea how to fix it.

Graphics performance is a joke. I'm sorry but CAD products are not trying to watch copied DVDs or HD movies, so if that's the reason the software runs like a dog, explain to me why CAD software sets off DRM tilt factors.

If that isn't the reason then explain to me why I should invest in yet another $10,000 in hardware costs just to operate at the same speed we currently do under XP.
Posted by ajbright (447 comments )
Reply Link Flag
So much FUD
File copy problems solved about two weeks ago with a performance update. I saw it on a few Vista boxes but others worked just fine. The patch was in Tuesday update for people not wanting to manually download it.

DRM causing CAD problems? Are you running those CAD programs over a HDMI cable into a monitor that has HDMI connections? Does the CAD program use the ID tag to say "hey use DRM"? DRM FUD...such BS.

Here read this <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=673" target="_newWindow">http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=673</a>

I know the CAD companies never knew Vista was coming. When they finally found out a year or so before it came out they just figured Microsoft would never sell a PC with Vista to a user her might want to use CAD. I know its Microsofts fault.

So let me ask do you run you XP users as limited users? So they cant install anything? YOu know screw up the PC so you have to waste thousands of dollars on re-loading XP? Of course you dont because a limited user in XP has problems running some MS apps so users have to be an Amdin on the box.

With Vista they dont have to be and you lock them down very tight. There is some serious savings right there. Security wise it is more secure, IE7 runs in an isolated mode and under a limited user so its much, much harder for any kind of malware to bust out of that.

Deploying Vista with its new image capabilites, night and day compared to XP. No need for tools like ghost, let that sysmantec contract run out.

There are even more GPO, globaling setting powermanagment features, sleep thousands of PC's that are part of your domain, using a GPO.

Yeah I know Vista offers nothing to the business world.
Posted by Maclover1 (440 comments )
Link Flag
Vista has Ultimate Business Value for Information Workers
On the contrary, I believe Vista's built in search/start menu is a huge productivity gain for information workers. You no longer have to navigate down any menu! Just type in what you're looking for and it's one click away.
Posted by wolvie3421 (3 comments )
Link Flag
File copying (so-called!)
Microsoft has always had a problem with the one thing that an OS is supposed to do. Try copying multiple files from a CD, with one corrupted file among them. Windows will bomb out immediately it encounters the corrupt file, without attempting to copy any of the others! And this has been going on for decades!
Posted by Julescosta (2 comments )
Link Flag
No reason to hang back...
As an IT manager for a number of companies, I have not recommended to any of them that they make a wholesales move to Vista. We are however, bringing in every new computer as a Vista Business Enterprise machine.
Overall the dificulties have been few and we are pleased with the deployments so far. Roughly 1/3 of all my client computers are now Vista and I expect that number to reach 65% by next spring.
The unfortunate problem is the inexcusable foul ups by long time hi tech Pros such as Hewlett Packard, Netscreen, and others who failed to have drivers or updated software ready on time. There was no excuse for this as it is not as if Vista was a surprise.
Posted by larryflowers (11 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Thanks for the objectivity...
I find it funny how when someone reports a real world example a successful implementation of Vista how all of the haters have nothing to say. Thanks Larry for sprinkling some reality in this talkback. We too have had the same successes you've experienced. A network of Vista PC's seems to snap together a lot tighter even without Windows Server 2008. My own desktop at work is 3 years old and required no hardware changes whatsoever (and yes is still damn fast; the async stuff they added the explorer and other parts of the OS makes things bog down a lot less than in XP). We've even been so bold as to upgrade 2 year old laptops with the same success (and no we don't buy craptops; whaaaaa! my $500, 2 year old laptop won't run Vista Ultimate!!! That's so unfair!).

Sure there are hardware &#38; software companies out there that are lagging when it comes to Vista support but whose fault is that?

I have a neighbor with a Mac that's about 5 years old and it still runs pretty good and can run most current software titles out there...at a snails pace.

No software company can innovate and be profitable at it if they are stuck with the pre-requisets most deem fair here:

1. Lots of "well implemented" new features (a.k.a. eye candy)
2. Runs as fast if not faster than the last version with absolutely NO hardware upgrade reqirements.
3. Works with peripherals that are 8 or more years old (and it's the OS manufacturer's resposibility to insure this is true the day the OS is released).
4. Completely exploit free (including software provided by other companies that runs on the OS) And be sure NOT to break compatibility with anything when making the OS more secure!
5. Is free.

Hmmm... I wonder why the iPhone is so expensive? Why can't I just upgrade my Newton with the iPhone software?
Posted by kojacked (1129 comments )
Link Flag
Only r3tards could complain
It is so funny hearing all these complaints about Vista...They are so far from the thruth...Probably because those people who are complaining have never used Vista for long enough to understand what changed. Or probably because those people can not afford Vista. Or probably cause they are too r3tarted to understand computers :) Hate those network admins that do not understand much about hardware/software either...
Anyway - I was using Vista since beta1 and would not be able to find any reason why would I look back to XP. Even lousy companies that do not want to provide drivers for Vista - would not stop it's adoption.
Posted by alenas (181 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Windows Monkey Alert!
&lt;eom&gt;
Posted by anarchyreigns (299 comments )
Link Flag
Many issues still there
There is more than cost and driver issues when it comes to Vista. A software developer came out to work on a piece of software we use in our company. Due to security and other coding issues within the OS itself (unchangable) dealing with Web Services, the software could NOT be made compatible with Vista (forcing us to Downgrade 4 newly purchased PCs to Windows XP Professional).
The developer worked on it for 4 months with no luck and even contacted Microsoft.
Microsoft dug themselves a hole with this OS. Home use is okay but in the corporate setting, Stick with XP or 2000 for now on the clients.
Posted by kengehr2785 (1 comment )
Link Flag
Why junk a perfectly good P.C. ?
I won't trash a working P.C. running X.P. just to upgrade to Vista.

Now that would be "retarded".

It ain't broke, so why should add my P.C. to landfill, so I can have a bit of Aero?

Seems being "retarded" is subjective.
Posted by m.o.t.u. (96 comments )
Link Flag
How about this "r3tard"?
"[i]I could go on and on about the lack of drivers, the bizarre
wake-up rituals, the strange and nonreproducible system quirks,
and more. But I won't bore you with the details. The upshot is
that even after nine months, Vista just ain't cutting it. I definitely
gave Microsoft too much of a free pass on this operating system:
I expected it to get the kinks worked out more quickly. Boy, was
I fooled! If Microsoft can't get Vista working, I might just do the
unthinkable: I might move to Linux.[/i]"

- from <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2171517,00.asp" target="_newWindow">http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2171517,00.asp</a>
(the guy used to be the leading Vista cheerleader at PC
Magazine.)

/P
Posted by Penguinisto (5042 comments )
Link Flag
Speaking of retards --
Obviously your equipment doesn't include a spellchecker. I guess you'll have to wait for the brainchecker module.
Posted by BrianFH (54 comments )
Link Flag
It's not the OS that they can't afford
It's the thousands of dollars in software and hardware upgrades that become necessary after a Vista upgrade. I know there are people that ONLY use Microsoft Office and HP printers but there are lots of people that use specialized applications that vendors have no incentive to send patches for if they can sell a new upgrade.

An upgrade of an operating system should be transparent but this Windows Vista upgrade p!sses all over your face to get attention! If you use anything but Microsoft Office and HP printers, then expect to upgrade half of your stuff.

The bottom line is that it costs way too much to upgrade something that didn't even need fixing!
Posted by frankz00 (196 comments )
Reply Link Flag
My Company just rolled out SP2! On same PCs with no additional ram
The new build (SP2), on the same machines, without additional ram
(512), is slow as a bloodhound in August.

Upgrade to Vista? Are you kidding?
Why? It "looks" nice, but it's not a "real" machine.
Posted by technewsjunkie (1265 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Windows users are the most patient...
I have used Apple computers since 1992. My current Apple is a 2003 model and it can access software from 1994 through 2007. This is in reference to the statement that Windows computers older than 12 to 18 months may not be able to run Vista! Therefore, Windows computers may become obsolete in record time when a new operating system is introduced. So much more waste for our landfills and ecology! More of your dollars spent!
Posted by gudy2choos (1 comment )
Reply Link Flag
I am not sure patient is the right word
"Low standards"

"Ignorance of what other OS's can do"

"Some strange belief that they have to put up with all the crap that comes standard with Vista"

OK, that isn't a word, but more descriptive of the problem. They put up with shoddy OS's after shoddy OS's. They think the Zune is a quality product. They excuse the XBOX debacle, etc, etc.

If patient is the right word, then placing pathologically if front of patient is more descriptive.
Posted by The_Decider (3097 comments )
Link Flag
Vista runs DOS
The whole beauty of MS is that it will run very old software, on which many enterprises still rely. Like data bases, inventory systems and the like.

Just for fun I downloaded and ran the original VisiCalc program VCdot.com (for those of you not old enough to know, this program changed the world). It runs perfectly in DOS under Vista.

That is the sort of backwards compatibility users need. The operating system is just a necessary evil - only applications matter.
Posted by ch1200 (3 comments )
Link Flag
No thanks on upgrading still..
I'll wait 3 more years when they release their next OS. Hopefully
Vista will be a lesson learned now that Allchin is no longer with
the company. I'm definitely sure WinFS will be revitalized, along
with a more stable UNIX like kernel (not NT) and most
importantly COMPATIBILITY with other devices. Those are the
three things they promised with Vista and obviously haven't
delivered and thats why Vista is such a dud.

But in general the OS so far is such a hassle to upgrade too.
XP SP2 just works and is far more stable running OS than Vista
(that is if your not running Outlook 2007 which only seems to
work excellent in Vista for some reason go figure).

Either way just hope their next OS won't take more than 3 years
to accomplish. We'll let Vista slide.. but with their next OS they'll
be accountable this time for sure.
Posted by ServedUp (413 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Just Finally Moved To XP
The Fortune-100 company I work for just now finally completed an 18 month migration from Win2K to WinXP.

Unless MS pulls the plug on XP support, I don't think we'll be switching to Vista any time soon.
Posted by open-mind (1027 comments )
Reply Link Flag
you should tell your cio he sucks
if it was upgrading to xp sp2, i'd say whatever. your company is playing it safe.

but with the past 5 years or so having seen so much growth in consumer pc's which are mostly winxp... why would any cio in their right mind want to subject their thousands of employees to win2000 for this long? that's a total drag on productivity.
Posted by wolvie3421 (3 comments )
Link Flag
They should immediately move to Vista
Businesses should immediately, and post-haste, move to Vista. It has much better security, is (for the most part) backwards compatible with all programs from earlier dating back to Windows 95, except 'real-mode' games and things that have to install drivers that there are no Vista drivers for (a failing of the hardware makers, not Microsoft).

I am exceptionally happy with my father's Toshiba A135 Vista Notebook PC. Has very snappy performance (once I turned off 8.3 filename creation and a few other things were tweaked) to the point where it is faster than a newer model I tested and compared it to at Best Buy.
Posted by Leria (585 comments )
Reply Link Flag
lol
Never mind the extra hardware code, never mind the fact that Vista is NOT more secure then XP.

Leria has to justify her paycheck as a Microsoft astroturfer, so come on everyone, throw your networks into upheaval and blow this years profits on 5 year old tech!
Posted by The_Decider (3097 comments )
Link Flag
I would rather use DOS.
I like W2K. I don't mind XP. I think Vista is a crime.

It consumes way too many uP cycles. It requires a fast uP and lots of DRAM. It is obnoxious with its' security questions, the Mac commercial that has a guy interrupt the PC every time he is asked a question is very appropriate. There is no apparent advantage over XP - if you have to tell me what it is, then it's hidden. I shouldn't have to work extra to appreciate an OS, it's supposed to be there in the background. You don't buy a computer to get an OS, it should just be a characteristic of the system, not the attraction.

So in the two dozen years I have been buying PCs, about 30 of them for personal use (countless more for work), only two of them have been Macs, and none Linux. I'll never buy another Vista machine. It will be Mac or Linux for me, unless it's necessary for a particular application.

The days of the desktop OS are numbered anyway. A large percentage of home PC users only use browser, email, and media apps, and they don't require a desktop OS. And the rest of the consumers who occasionally need to open a word doc or excel spreadsheet will be able to use google docs or some equivalent. It's sad that a PC has to be big just to support the OS, what a waste of all that DRAM and MIPS, not to mention desk space and energy. All that most consumers will need is a small box that connects their monitor, keyboard, and mouse to the Internet. When the U.S. has real broadband (Fios is a good start), they won't even need optical drives, as downloads will be as fast.

Until then, I'll have to keep the old machines running.
Posted by kgsbca (185 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Highly unlikely my company will ever upgrade to Vista..
The computer I use at my work place is assembled with the bare
minimum components to support XP. It's running most of the time
Internet Explorer and Office. Why would my company pay out more
money to upgrade my computer's components and install Vista
when it's already adequately doing what it was built to do..???
Multiply that by about 5,000 and the costs will be staggering..!!
Posted by imacpwr (456 comments )
Reply Link Flag
Ever?
So before your PC did you have a paper and a pencil?

What happens in 3 years....you still have the same box and software?
Posted by Maclover1 (440 comments )
Link Flag
 

Join the conversation

Add your comment

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Click here to review our Terms of Use.

What's Hot

Discussions

Shared

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.