Joe, any idea how these figures compare to the same timeframe after the introduction of XP?

A lot of people might argue that XP take-up was pretty slow too.

Piot wrote: "Any idea how these figures compare to the same timeframe after the introduction of XP?"

There's no fair comparison. XP released 18 months after Windows 2000. Vista released about six years after XP. That said, there should have been huge pent up demand for XP's successor. That XP is growing is good indicator of how strong is Vista resistance. The point: Vista reception is cool when it should be hot after such a long release cycle.

Joe

Other than the ongoing negative perception of Vista, I'm not sure how this matters.

I can't buy XP licenses, so to run it, I'd have to buy Vista licenses and install XP with downgrade rights. The cost to me - and the revenue to MS - are exactly the same either way.

I don't think anyone expected enterprises (or much of anybody else) to buy new OS licenses for existing hardware. While MS may be a little red in the face about Vista adoption, if they're crying, they're doing it all the way to the bank.

DaveN,

In the OEM world any business Dell machine comes with Vista Downgrade to xp pre-built, there's not even an option from what i can see to get Vista. Presumably you have to ask that from the acct manager.

Also, in the Enterprise/Corp/Education sectors i would say at least 70% of machines are either imaged to a SOE by the supplier or by the enterprise. So once again new machines will be xp, unless the SOE has been changed to Vista.

The whole, "that's what came loaded on the box" thing is not all that relevant in the enterprise.

Oh and yeah, it does matter. In fact the way this Vista thing is panning out is a BIG DEAL as far is the IT industry is concerned.
A smell of weakness will hopefully finally attract some hungry competitors - just the thing we're so sorely missing in the IT industry...

Joe;

I find this article amazing with the graphs. I would of not guessed it on this site, but if I am reading the top graph right, in Wave 2 in Vista has just as much as Linux and Apple combined!

Also, according to your bottom graph, it looks like 28% will be moving forth to Vista!

What will be the total projected going to both Linux and Apple by 2010 -- I wonder?

I was reading on ZDNet that Windows Vista will win adoption by the Enterprise according to one columnist, but he did say it was going to be ugly. My guess is, that it won't be that darn ugly though. Enterprise always follows about 24 months behind everyone else, though it seems.

This pretty much reflects the feelings in the IS/IT department that I work in. It also reflects executive managements hesitation in spending tens of thousands of dollars on an OS with marginal improvement (plus hardware). We are in a tough economy here and I don't expect these numbers to improve much in the next year or two. In fact it may get much worse in a very bad recession. It can happen. Anyway, its hard enough to justify needed enterprise software to keep the business running. Businesses typically shy aware from software that has a bad reputation.

I agree that Vista is DOA in the enterprise.

I look forward to reading the MS excuse makers in this thread. I always need a good laugh.

How do the relative sizes of the business and consumer markets compare? Because consumers seem to be quite happy to be given Vista. Probably because most of them can't tell the difference.

"But you knew that already, right?"

Well, certainly Andre Da Costa didn't. For the longest time, he kept insisting Vista was doing well. Everybody wanted Vista for all its wonderful features, he said. Yeah, right.

What a nimrod!

DaveN wrote: "While MS may be a little red in the face about Vista adoption, if they're crying, they're doing it all the way to the bank."

It's not all about current revenue. Microsoft desperately needed a winner in Vista because they were afraid of losing market share to OS X and Linux. Their fears are being realized!

Gradually, the IT world is being weaned off Windows. In the long run, Microsoft's revenue will decline as one of their cash cows dies a slow death. This is what they're scared sh*tless of...

Ah, some good news! If there was an operating system that deserved to be ignored by users and left to die, it is DRM-laden, resource-hogging Vista. And I do have to disagree with Joe on one point: Vista IS a bad operating system because of DRM and its ravenous lust for computing power.

How I wish Vista would just disappear. It won't but it's nice knowing it won't inflict itself on as many users as Micro$oft would like.

Why would businesses want Vista?

- Better security? yeah right. On XP you just have to only allows 'User' rights on the machines and not 'Admin' rights and Given the fact that more apps are updated to work like this because Vista, XP will benefit from it too. I really hope XP would have enforced this behavior by default. Now add a decent Anti-Virus + Anti-Spyware and you're set, you're as secure as Vista.

- Better stability? Better stability comes from better quality hardware, and overall hardware quality has improved over the years. Also, better stability comes from simpler hardware config. DELL business machines Optiplex and Latitude, for example, are pretty simple and straight forward configs compared to home users/gamers machines. The last Blue screen of death I've seen on XP were due to dodgy ram or a overheating CPU, Vista would have crashed too. Better stability comes from the OS.

- Faster? Really? Come on, how can it be faster when you're hardware is chocked by resource hungry Vista? Even after SP1.

What else is supposed to attract a business to use Vista?
- Better stability/security because Vista has more control on what apps can and can't do. Possibly but right now it's a small gain.

- DirectX 10? It is only appeals to gamers.

- The massive OS foot print on the hard drive and the memory? LOL. If you have a PC running Win2000 it will run XP by setting it up properly (disable a few unnecessary services and mainly the XP themes) et voila.

Unless you have a brand new machine dual-core, 4GB of RAM, and a middle-range 3D video card Vista will not run decently after a couple months of usage.

Even under the scenario of a brand new machine just think about how much more resources (hdd / ram) are saved by running XP and therefore how much more can be done.

Personally, I don't use Vista at home nor at work, and never will. I'm kind of the go to guy when friends and co-worker have PC issues and basically I don't 'support' Vista. My answer to a Vista user is I will install XP for you but nothing else.

I can only hope that Windows7 will undo the majority of Vista mistakes and bring real improvements and innovations (e.g modularity, clean app install where all is under the app folder and no more registry), or that ReactOS will be more than ready by the time no more security updates are released for WinXP in 2014.

@Lawrence:

do you KNOW any consumers who demanded Fista? or did they stupidly get stuck with it at their latest PC purchase & are regretting it ever since?

Fista is a bloated HOG of a POS OS with no actual improvements to the computing experience. Eyecandy & flaky networking aren't improvements.

Al hopes Windoze 7 would be better, but since Microsuck announced it would be built off of Fista, there's no hope for improvement.

Some businesses are starting migrations to the newer operating system ...often with not much trouble. Some are very happy with the newer operating system.

No ... I am not talking about Vista. But Linux, and while Linux won't run everything. It will do most needed applications for daily business. And for most businesses the trade off comes from saving the enormous licensing fees and complicated payment structures that saddles down many businesses ...especially now in these tough economic times.

The migration usually starts off with dual booting and familiarization of the Linux programs. Since Linux is well established and well respected in the business sector already. It won't take a whole lot for Linux to migrate to the desktop.

Expensive upgrades to suit some software manufacturer's wishes and hopes are a thing of the past. It is a brave new economic world now and the landscape has shifted.

I use Vista at home and work.
Home experience:
I love the Vista Media Center experience to the point that instead of picking up another DVD player for the kids room I bought a Linksys DMA2200 instead and stream content to their TV. I will be extending that to other rooms in the house as well and just purchased a HP 42" MediaSmart TV (got a screaming deal on it as well). I have a computer that has enough hardware oomph to play currently released video games on so I was one of the hardware profile people that Microsoft was hoping everybody would be at. How "Fast" is fast enough? If you have rock solid gaming computer its not an issue. Anything else and you might as well keep using XP. Without Aero a lot of Microsoft's programs won't run (thinking movie maker here).

My Work experience:
Vista for me was broken prior to SP1. I had it installed on my work laptop and tried to use it but the file transfer issue was a non-starter for me and I quickly went back to XP (an hour and a half to transfer a 200mb file?). I honestly wonder what people were testing when they were in the beta program. Was that issue not discovered then? Then came the other tidbits of annoyance: Exchange 2003 management tools will not install on Vista. Exchange 2007 tools will only partially manage a 2003 box, so Microsoft's answer was RDP. The RSAT (Remote Systems Administration Tools) should have been released with Vista, not post Windows Server 2008. Tools that will be used on the Client need to be released with the client. Although, when looking at how badly MS borked the file transfer/networking issue I am almost glad that they did wait. My last issue: Run As. I guess Microsoft thought it would be a bit confusing to have 2 run as options in the menu but to remove the ability to run as a different user completely and not just an admin is just dumb. Counting on UAC to get the job done when protecting the OS is stupid and there are a lot of other reasons why elevating to another user is appropriate. Forcing me to run as an admin is dumb in a business environment. I am a domain admin and a virus would just love my account. I run Vista now at work because SP1 made it actually work. The impression I get when I use it here at work is that the "consumer" team won a round of rock-paper-scissors on some of these OS elements.

"if they're crying, they're doing it all the way to the bank."

Yes, but it has a 'price'(irritation and annoyance of the clients) and it is the price that actually Ms can't afford to pay. (MS should knows)

You have had little success with your general doom and gloom of Vista in the market, so you turn to specific segments where OS adoption is always a tricky and uncertain science in businesses. The maturity of Windows affects its future, the its good enough ways tend to make future releases tougher to adopt. Not that it won't be adopted, but the pace is always slower with each new release.

With over a 150 million copies deployed, Vista will continue to be understood and adopted across the many facets in which PC's are used. Joe I will continue to repeat myself, NT 4/Windows 98s adoption were different times, the pace of technology and the productiveness were increasing, businesses needed new functionality which caused new releases of Windows to be implemented faster.

With the release of Windows XP which merged the ease of use of Windows 9x releases with the stability and power NT really hit a major milestone that brought the best of both worlds together. With Vista, its going far and beyond and instead of Microsoft catching up to businesses and individuals expectations, its up to users to meet the expectation, realize the potential and tap into the power of Windows Vista.

Regardless Windows XP continues to be adopted its not saying that Vista licenses are being thrown out the window (no pun intended), just that those licenses are most likely being downgraded. Businesses are taking their time and rightly so, projects that need to be finished, implementation strategies. How do we improve our existing infrastructure to accommodate Vista? Which departments do we start with first? Do we do a one two punch Vista/Server 2008? Wait until applications in house have been updated, implement a virtualization solution? Wait until Service Pack 2 for Vista and Server 2008 are released? Do we wait until Windows 7 to be released, or when our Company refreshes hardware?

There are many reasons why Vista will take its time to be adopted. There is no question though, businesses "will" move to Vista.

Currently I am having to use Vista and Office 2007 (my client demands it) for work, i.e., dull just grind the keyboard and produce text and spread sheets. They both are horrible. The interface is all tarted up and everything takes two or more clicks than with XP. I find nothing to like about the two for just getting your work done.

"There are many reasons why Vista will take its time to be adopted. There is no question though, businesses "will" move to Vista."

This due the lack de facts (even more, against facts) is solely MS wishes.

just-a-drone. Please don't talk non-sense. Vista and Office 2007 makes things quicker and easier. Compare some common, very obvious task.

Searching for a file compared to Windows XP.

Vista - Click Start or press the Windows key on your keyboard and type in the name of your file. Instantly they appear. Windows XP, you had to do a variety of things to get average results.

Inserting a Picture or Clip Art compared to previous versions of Office.

Office 2007 with Office Fluent - Click Insert > click Picture or Clip Art. In Word 2003, you had to Click Insert, expand the cheveron > select Picture > and choose the type of content you wanted to insert.

Things like the Office Fluent interface, reveal commands that were once hidden under drop down menus. Its very obvious, everything is there and easy to understand. Only a stubborn person does not get Office 2007. If you have been using the suite for years, getting adjusted just takes 15 minutes on average. New users embrace Office 2007 very, very well I notice.

Windows Vista offers new ways of computing that are easier and sensible. Things like built in RSS feed gadget to give you quick access to information right on the Sidebar. The rich search capabilities, ability to create ad-hoc meetings and broadcast them without the need to reserve a conference room. Better backup thats more encouraging not to mention just plain easy. Way better security, richer compelling interface.

I personally notice even in corporate networks, Vista is a winner, joining a Domain or logging on is way faster. Vista Enterprise 32-bit compared to Windows XP Professional 64 bit is way faster. XP Pro 64-bit took 5 minutes to populate the Domain list, while with Vista, I just typed in the Domain\Username and was at the desktop doing work.

Its small and big things in Vista that make it a great choice to upgrade/migrate to. People are just listening to the open source propaganda and the negativity coming from the Mac community. Use Vista before you judge and I don't mean using it just for 15 minutes and coming to a conclusion. Actually use the OS.

The global economy isn't doing so well. We all know that.
Hopefully some of the first casualties of this will be inadequate MS only IT staff (sorry salespersons in disguise).
Linux adoption is/was slow because the software wasn't that good , the support staff had no skills , the upgrade cycle has brought worthwhile benefits and vendor lock in was not a problem.
Now things have changed. Linux to take off in the enterprise.

Let see 'its' efforts to dilute that and THIS news.

Google Getting Close to 70% of U.S. Search Market
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_70_percent_market_share.php

According to the latest data from Hitwise, Google gained yet another percentage point on its biggest competitors last month and now accounts for more than 69.17% of U.S. searches. In the U.K. and Australia, Google's market share has climbed above 87%. This increase comes at a time when, according to Hitwise, more and more Internet users are also relying on search to navigate to key industry categories.

Very hard, Internet (advertising) increasingly away
and the 'cows' going to dry.

Paul, Linux is still inadequate for most persons needs. Don't get me wrong, it has improved greatly over the years. But when it comes to features, usability and guaranteed support for your existing setup, devices and applications, Linux remains a lost cause. In fact, it continues to show in its market share which is stuck at a relatively weak 1.12%. I installed Ubuntu 8.04 and it was unfortunate to find out my nVidia Geforce FX 5200 Ultra was not supported, I turned to the web for help including the Ubuntu forums and was greeted by useless threads of no significant help. The result is, support continues to be Linux's main challenge in addition to the lack of support from the industry where third party hardware and software is concerned. Linux will remain an experimental alternative for a very, very long time to come.

"Hopefully some of the first casualties of this will be inadequate MS only IT staff (sorry salespersons in disguise)"

In the nail's head.

@Andre,

I think you continue to miss the point Andre. Clearly Joe has "turn to specific segments where OS adoption is always a tricky and uncertain science in businesses" like you say. Why? Because there is were choice exists. After June 30th what is there to see elsewhere? Microsoft officially killed XP, but retained choice for the corporate world and there is were analysis can be done. Not much to see in the other segments were Vista is the only option.

This paragraph of yours

"Regardless Windows XP continues to be adopted its not saying that Vista licenses are being thrown out the window (no pun intended), just that those licenses are most likely being downgraded. Businesses are taking their time and rightly so, projects that need to be finished, implementation strategies."

While trying to paint a nice image of Vista and the whole Windows platform. It actually shows what is substantially wrong about the Microsoft software stack.

Microsoft products are strongly incompatible with themselves. From file system layout to protocols and formats, an upgrade requires more than a simple install.

The benefits of newer technologies are outweighed by the trouble of actually rolling them out. It was advertised that Vista would provide developers with new features to implement in their applications. When a company stays with XP it forfeits those benefits.

Developing an inhouse application is a risky investment on the Windows platform. You can spend money now to develop it and then have a doubtful life span as well as hidden costs induced by Windows platform upgrades. In layman's terms, your application today may (and most surely will) break in the next Windows release. It will require resources (read money) to evaluate. It will require resources (read money again) to fix and you won't be sure when the next Windows will come out and how much it will cost you to upgrade then.

My take is that the extension given to XP support has helped keep companies on the Windows platform. If the pressure gets to high from expiring support and the cost to migrate to future versions of Windows keeps climbing. I see a lot more people looking towards open source solutions and platforms.

All I can say is that my clients are staying away from Vista in droves. They are paying me to build new boxes using XP. That is becoming more difficult as XP is harder to find.

The long Vista release cycle coupled with many of the great features being removed to finally ship it and Vista taking so many more resources has come at a bad time for Microsoft.

Businesses don't want to spend a lot of money on new hardware just to run Vista at the same speed as XP.

Despite Andre's torch carrying for Vista and against Linux, Linux is actually benefiting from all of this in ways that haven't been seen yet.

Clients that previously had no interest in Linux are now talking about it. They are asking me to research ways they can use it in their business. With Vista being so much different than XP, they are more willing to spend the learning curve for Linux since they would have to spend as much, or nearly as much, time learning Vista. Most older hardware is supported by Linux, and new systems being built can be built with hardware listed in the Linux Hardware Compatibility list.

Clients with custom applications are looking at having to rewrite for Vista, and are looking at rewriting it using open source languages that will allow the software to run on Windows, OSX, or Linux and are looking at Linux as their OS for the first time. Again, Vista is showing them the danger of being locked into Microsoft and paying high prices for the privilege. They are willing to investigate another option where they weren't willing to do so earlier.

None of this is showing up in statistics yet, but may have a great impact later. Some of my clients may end up sticking with Windows rather than going to Linux, but the fact they are even willing to think about it is a huge difference from only a couple of years ago. By moving to cross platform support for their custom apps, they are setting themselves up to move to Linux in the future if they want to rather than just being locked in again because the app was written specifically for Windows. Microsoft trying to convince businesses to upgrade to Vista by saying that Win7 is built on Vista is actually making clients even more willing to look at Linux now because they were considering sitting out Vista and upgrading to Win7 later. Now that they know that Win7 is built on Vista, they are willing to explore other options immediately rather than waiting for Win7. Microsoft shot themselves in the foot with that little announcement, I think!

We shall see what the future holds, but it isn't as automatically rosy for Microsoft as it would have seemed to inevitably be a couple years ago.

Sorry for the long post.

Vista isn't getting the uptake because laptops can't handle it well yet.

Negative sentiment means nothing to the Enterprise but expensive upgrades do.

I will roll it out when the laptops can deal with it, not before.

Vista isn't getting the uptake because laptops can't handle it well yet.

Negative sentiment means nothing to the Enterprise but expensive upgrades do.

I might add that long term Windows users are getting a taste of freedom in the form of dual boot with Linux. The Vista Forums have many slowly moving to Linux in the form of "dual booting". Not to mention that the Vista Forums has fairly good Linux and Mac forums.

Add to this the recent development of a program called "WUBI" which allows one to install Linux on a Windows system much like one would install a regular Windows program with no partitioning or configuring.

(Not that Linux needs much configuring anymore as compiling code and time spent at the command line are pretty much a thing of the past).

Regular consumers and of course businesses are saving hundreds or even thousands of dollars by using Open Office and other free applications.

Even long time Windows users are finding that Open Office is a refreshing change to high priced, proprietary locked down software that doesn't require "activation" or the "Windows Genuine Advantage" big brother type looking over your shoulder applications ....(there is no "advantage" to having someone calling its customers thieves and making them prove otherwise).

Consumers and businesses will continue to move to free and open source applications. Whether it is Linux or Open Office or even Gimp or Thunderbird.

Many new users to Linux are noticing that their computers are running faster and the unique and robust applications that free and open source leads to the fullness of the computer experience. Especially when they don't need to empty their wallet anymore or rack up sky high credit card bills.

Today's Linux has the most up to date and free applications available. Ubuntu 8.04 is only three months old. Compare that to Vista which was FIVE YEARS in development, and they still can't get it right.

There is something plain evil about a company like Microsoft that employs people like Andre to distort the truth in such a dishonest and vile way. Its bad enough when they tell us Vista is the newest thing since sliced bread, when really it is just warmed over NT reused code, with lipstick on the pig (new wallpaper). The only really new thing about Vista is the heavy dose of DRM added in, which causes all kinds of resource hogging slowdowns and stability problems. We all know Andre gets paid by Microsoft, but he will never admit it, as it would make he comments even a little bit more worthless than they already are, if that is possible.

Andre really only has one problem with linux, and that is that money in not going into Microsoft pockets, which means he does not get his.

The world is starting to turn away, gradually, from Microsoft systems. It has to start somewhere, and Vista was the start, the reason, for most to look elsewhere. Vista is not good enough for many users, so they look elsewhere. Mac and linux have now gained share, in part, thanks to the problems and cost of deploying Vista.

Andre is also wrong when he says everyone will move to Vista. Unless he means, windows seven is Vista2. Windows Seven now has a shot, if its any better. Vista will be bypassed, and if Seven is the same POS, users will move even faster to Mac and Linux.

@TusconMatt
Very thoughtful post! I agree with you 100 percent. I am currently running Vista on a Core 2 Duo box that I built last year. I am not happy with its performance.

When it's time to replace it in a couple of years, I will purchase an Ubuntu box. Despite the garbage that Andre Da Costa spews, I will have no difficulty finding a high-performance machine from a reliable vendor. After all, if you stick to hardware known to be compatible with Linux, you'll have no problems with device support.

Andre's problems arose because he installed Linux on Windows hardware. But if you stick to preloaded Linux machines, you'll be happy.

@The Hand
Windows 7 might be better than Vista. Microsoft may surprise us. But I rather doubt it.

The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Vista is a disaster. Windows ME was a disaster. Windows 95 and 98 hardly qualified as real operating systems -- they caused users no end of trouble. Windows NT was forgettable.

Only Windows 2000 stood out as a remarkable achievement. And the XP successor turned out fairly well in time. So based on the past, I feel confident betting *against* Microsoft and Windows 7.

Anyone who spouts the DRM nonsense can be safely judged to be uninterested in the facts. This has been debunked time and time again, and people are still saying it. DRM does not affect you unless you actually watch DRM'd video or listen to DRM'd songs. There is ZERO effect on normal system functioning.

Anyone who thinks Linux stands a chance on the mainstream desktop is deluding themselves. TucsonMatt -- Linux taking as much time to learn as Vista? You've got to be kidding me. Rewrite-to-Vista being as hard as rewrite-to-Linux? What, are they running 16-bit Windows 3.1 applications?

Businesses use Linux as a second-source kudgel, to hammer the Microsoft salesman when he comes around looking for a fat commission. A couple of cities in the UK did it, and saved themselves a neat sum when they ended up buying all-Microsoft. They're not going to switch to Linux on the desktop. Linux server, maybe. Desktop, no way. Not for nothing did Red Hat drop the desktop and decide to focus on the server. And not for nothing is Ubuntu funded by a billionaire who doesn't care about return.

I, for one, can't understand why Microsoft doesn't release "Windows Workstation 2008" already. (Ed Bott's idea.) Why doesn't anyone say that Windows Server 2008 is a piece of junk? Why doesn't anyone trot out the red herring that Server 2008 is slowed down by DRM (yes, you can run everything that runs on Vista on 2008 -- including DRM'd video)? Why doesn't anyone complain that Server 2008 forces them to buy new hardware?

Take Windows Server 2008, strip out the server stuff, turn on the Aero interface, and bam! Windows Workstation 2008. Businesses do not want to be running a consumer operating system. Vista was New Coke, Windows Workstation 2008 can be the Second Coming of Coca-Cola Classic. Doesn't matter if they're the same underneath, the branding makes all the difference.

The numbers that Andre cites are inflated and don't reflect the true rate of adoption. I am so glad he does not work in the IT department at my company.

Keep up the propaganda Andre. My BS meter goes off every time I read your white paper post.

@Tom
"I, for one, can't understand why Microsoft doesn't release "Windows Workstation 2008" already. (Ed Bott's idea.) Why doesn't anyone say that Windows Server 2008 is a piece of junk?"
----------------------------------------------------
Not that I would be interested in acquiring it, but perhaps there is some confusion with all the 2008 server releases? Wasn't there also a 2008 Home server edition? And didn't that go for something like $558? Of course, the 2008 Server is very expensive, as oppose to the Home server version, as its for businesses. But the point is, this costs even more than an XP Pro license, more than Vista Ultimate, and is just too much money for home use.

Times are tough, when most people are having trouble worrying about putting gas in the tank, free linux is looking better and better as an alternative to any Micro$oft products.

On another note;

Report: Microsoft in talks for a deal with AOL

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/07/16/report-microsoft-talks-deal-aol

I used to think Directx 10 was flubbed by Microsoft in Vista to push gamers to the xbox. If this is true, they made a very large mistake. This will push gamers to the xbox but leave them with no real reason not to go to Linux.

Joe wrote "That said, there should have been huge pent up demand for XP's successor."

Why Joe ? -

In corporations the cost of migrating from XP to Vista is significant, in hardware, software and most importantly manpower costs, those costs are predictable and measurable. To offset those costs there must be tangible, predictable, measurable benefits over time (typically 3 years). It is very difficult to put forward a compelling case for wholesale change to Vista - the benefits just aren't available.

When W2K was released there was a pent up demand, from Win98 users because of its instability, and NT desktop users because of problematic application support. W2K did not have time to fulfill that demand because XP arrived soon after. by and large the corporate world took to it in droves, the business case was compelling.

Even if MS gets Win 7 to market as soon as some are predicting, the corporate world wont migrate to it unless there is a compelling business case. IMO the desktop OS itself will never again be the driver for mass desktop rollouts. We will have organic drift, and for that reason we'll see more variety in the desktop OS, both in origination and version, MS will lose market share, down to 80% perhaps even as low 65%.

Desktop OS's have become inherently boring, they are all by and large fit for purpose - including Vista.

When Windows XP was introduced, wasn't it also declared "DOA in the enterprise"? They have always been late-adaptors.

In the mean time, Vista-preinstalled continues to dominate in new consumer computer sales.

Your equating of Sluts with Punk styling is ridiculously closed minded and backwards.

So you are saying that you can tell a girl is a slut because she has tattoos and piercings, and that a slut must wear these "identifiers".

Hope you get what you deserve from the next tattooed gal you meet.

Tattooed and Pierced wrote: "Your equating of Sluts with Punk styling is ridiculously closed minded and backwards."

Eh, no, it's not. It makes a point, nothing more. I'm from Maine. I don't get offended when someone uses expression "back on the farm" to indicate people from Maine are stupid or simple minded.

You make me laugh. How could anyone audacious enough to get pierced or tattooed be offended by my reference? And just to be clear, I came of age during the late `70s when punk, piercings and tattoos were symbols of protest, not style as they are today. I've got nothing against them.

Joe

The Open Source propanganda is strong and mighty in the comments. No biggie, but I have proven my point. Windows is a better operating system than Linux and you all know that. You all just choose to counter my points with irrelevant offenses at me. I do not work for Microsoft, I just like their software, just like how you like Open Source software. What could be wrong or evil about that?

With Windows Vista now hitting the 180 million mark, with 20 million copies being deployed per month, it proves that people are seeing the benefits and are actually doing the comparisons. Why would I want to invest in Linux where the only benefit there is a good old migraine (if thats your sorta thing)? Windows Vista took a long time to reach market, but Microsoft's years of hardwork and feedback they have received from us, really help to make this a great release and paying off.

I believe a lot of the hate being spewed towards 'Microsoft' the company comes from a combination hate because of its size, resources, and engineering prowess, in addition to the fact that people love Microsoft software.

"I do not work for Microsoft, I just like their software"

And its 'HARDWARE' that that Ms 'gift' you each time. Ha,ha.

Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but when you are required to Purchase a Vista License just to install Windows XP... and Microsoft says that you can "upgrade at your own leisure" doesn't that mean that those sales will be lost once a replacement is in the works?

Marco, I realize you are in desparate need of a laptop. STSI2009, its not a lost, especially in the Corporate market, since most businesses sign up for Enterprise Licensing Agreements. Its the Company's license deploy what they have when they want.

So, The HARDWARE are Laptops, is not it? ,well almost everybody knew it (.. if somebody has doubts still..) But it does you a Shill.
------
Sorry my friend but I don't like the deceit.

I wonder if Microsoft will ever realize that this is their "New Coke" and offer their valued customers "Coke Classic" someday. None of my clients have adopted Vista, and it's not my prodding, either. Those who have Vista say they don't like the interface. They find themselves hunting around to do things that used to come natural to them. And I think that's what's made people adopt it less. There's a learning curve, it's not user friendly to those used to XP.

Joe,

I don't think that it's just perceptions of Vista that are negative, but the realities for many enterprises. This comment is to further your position that a marketing campaign will accomplish nothing except enrich Microsoft advertising partners.

Let me explain. Do you really understand why enterprises are so hesitent to adopt Vista? You touched on some of the topics (hardware requirements, OS annoyances, etc.), but haven't mentioned the biggest enterprise drawback: application compatibility.

Do you have any idea how many actual business applications many large enterprises have in their companies (and on their desktops)? I'm not talking about the big ones (like Office), but all of the small-use applications (engineering apps, vendor applications, utilities, etc.) that are so important to the actual business users? It's actually very difficult or almost impossible to get an accurate count in many enterprises. This is especially true for those enterprises who allow users Admin access to install their own applications (most enterprises, by my experience).

For example, at last count we think (but aren't sure) that we have over 10,000 actual client business applications in use. We have about 7,000 employees. Do the math.

How many of these applications are older versions? How many would have to be upgraded to run correctly on Vista? How many cannot be upgraded, at all (product no longer made, vendor no longer exists, etc.)? What would be the business impact to actual business users and activities of even attempting a Vista migration? The effort to even figure this out is paralyzing, not to mention the thought of actually doing it.

How much do you think migrating actually costs? Think the cost of the OS is important? Forget about it - it's a sunk cost. We already paid Microsoft (stupid enterprise agreements) in order to get support. Where do you think they come up with those idiotically inflated Vista sales numbers? What's the cost of all of the labor, all of the application upgrades, all of the loss of productivity, etc.? It's staggering. It's too big to estimate. It scares the crap out of us.

The question is business value: Why?? Dammit, why should we? Why should our business absorb this cost and effort? What is the value that is delivered to the business (not to I/T) from migrating to Vista? What does the business actually get out of it?

For business and I/T managers whose job it is to prioritize funding and activities based on business value, how do think this math works out? This is an easy call to make.

As others have pointed out, enterprises image their own machines. What's delivered by OEMs and VARs is irrelevant. We don't care. We're not moving until we are forced to (which we think will come in 2011 or 2012 if we're lucky).

By then, if we have to replace almost everything in order to move to a new OS, there are possibly more attractive options. Think virtualized workstations and application environments. Think alternate OS platforms (BTW, we're experimenting already - Mac laptops virtualizing the Windows environement). Think anything except betting the company on Microsoft's desktop operating system lifecycles......

Wow lots of issues with technical problems in Vista and my BIGGEST complaint seems to be MIA. The thing I hate most about Vista is that when you load it up you have to learn a new OS. I use Linux, Macintosh, XP and Vista. ONLY Microsoft feels that there is some improvement in moving everything around just to piss you off. Why do they insist on changing the location of simple things like display settings? There is no reason at all that anyone should think it is an improvement to take basic features of an OS and put them in a different spot? Yes the DRM and other issues would keep me from deploying it to the majority of users, but the main thing is that I have to retrain ALL my users so they can find basic features of the product that they can already find on the XP that is in front of them.

@Zerxez

I agree with you. I've been using Vista (in a lab) since the release candidate phase. I also use XP on an identical machine (dual-core AMD X2 4800 CPUs) and the side-by-side real-life usability and performance makes Vista look like it's actually ill.

This isn't just a case of not getting used to a new layout. I also use many other OSs - I get used to them fairly quickly. However, the usability atrocities that Microsoft committed in Vista make practically EVERYTHING more difficult to get to. Why?

And there are features I use in XP that are totally missing in Vista (like adjusting file extension mapping and behaviors: Tools, Folder Options, File Types in XP, in Vista....um..... What the ??).

After all this time it still drives me crazy....

With Vista it seems they spent more time coding what we can't do with our computers than with what we could and threw aero on top of it to make it look pretty. Pretty (eye candy) does not get the job done. I currently triple boot with XP Pro for a couple of games. Everything else is done in Linux. Ah the freedom.

There is one big problem with vista that will not go away no matter what M$ does: it asserts final control of my computer. My computer should do what I tell it to, not what steve balmer says it should do.

12 months ago I switched to Ubuntu, and I'm having so much fun I'll never be back. now my computer KNOWS who it;s master is.

I work at a hospoital and we can't use Vista. That is because our PACS viewer software is still not ready for Vista... and seems like it will not be ready for a long time yet, if ever.

https://www.merge.com/EMEA/estore/content.aspx?returnUrl=&productID=108&contentTypeID=4

"MS Vista Users:
eFilm Workstation 2.1.2 is currently undergoing testing for operation within the MS Vista operating system environment, and will be validated for use in Vista systems soon.."

Another hospital nearby does not want Office 2007 or Vista because the combination is much slower, more clunkier and eats lots of hardware for the same job.