Well, we can't so Joe wasn't anti-Microsoft this time! :)

I use Windows XP. I also know many of the Linux distributions. But I must admit I feel more comfortable and productive running under Windows.

I bet I'll upgrade to Vista. Not immediately for sure, my upgrades always depend on my hardware. I change my notebooks in a 12-18 months period, when I requiere more horsepower. THEN AND ONLY THEN, I choose the Windows suitable for my hardware.

I'll never buy new hardware just to make my OS run smoothly. So Vista will wait some months for me.

You start off your argument from a corporate stand point and end up justifying the upgrade from a consumer point of view - this is a totally flawed argument.

Having used Vista since Beta1-RC2 I've reverted back to XP because Vista is just: too slow (mainly search), UI is clunky

Cost of replacing my hardware for just an OS, I would think you will have a hard time proving and quantifying the cost benefit - taking 10 or 20 seconds less do do soemthing is hardly going to justify the cost and pain of upgrade and re-install of apps - and that's just for personal users - never mind corporates with hundreds of apps to test and re-package for automated deployment.

In someways I think XP was too good - for Corps, anyway - it standardised much, provided desktop management and for the most just worked.

Remember IT and IS are just tools to help people run their businesses - that's all. If you applied your logic to a plumber, then they would need to buy new wrenches or hammers everytime a manufacturer put a new widget on it - I don't think so!

I have been considering a wholesale deletion of all my industry analyst/journalist blog and newsletter subscriptions. I get a little weary of the "Microsoft is doing everything wrong -- and by the way -- they are the evil empire too" kind of thinking. I am about to the point of shutting my eyes to all the consistently negative Vista "analysis" and buying a Vista system to see for myself before deploying company-wide. I like the idea of IROI. Hum, maybe I'll keep Joe's blog, at least for now.

i feel ****ty, its 2:30am here in Melbourne, i dont no y im reading this

I use Windows XP on my 2 year old Gateway 200s notebook computer. It works great. I see no need to upgrade to Winows Vista till I need a newer notebook computer.

I also use eComStation on my Desktop (which I assembled myself) and my Thinkpad T23. It works great. I will probably upgrade to 2.0 when it comes out but it is not vital since 1.2r works so well. http://www.ecomstation.com

It's been said elsewhere that half the PCs in corporate America won't be able to handle Vista. My firm is a "small" publishing company, i.e. about a 500 PC installed base. Assuming we'd have to replace half of them to run Vista, that's at least a $250,000 commitment, plus IT tech time, plus all the new licenses. Look for us to do that sometime in 2009, at the earliest, when Moore's Law finally does catch up with the legacy systems. We can't be the only moderate-sized company in the world to think this.

We're just now getting around to an OS X migration in our editorial division!

If change is so good, why not start realising the benefits of OS X?

Oh yeah, it's called Microsoft inertia.

You've hit the nail on the head in regards to having a single app not being Vista compatible being one too many and sufficient reason for not upgrading but you missed another one that's just as critical and that's a lack of support for hardware accelerated audio that's generally required for ADA Accessibility compliance.

In my company, we have several employees dependent upon speech recognition software that absolutely demands hardware acceleration in order to operate correctly and yet Vista doesn't support anykind of audio hardware acceleration. Combine that with a mission critical application that isn't Vista compatible as yet and we're hit with a double whammy and have to delay the roll out of Vista until it finally offers audio hardware accelertaion support and our mission critical app is updated to work under Vista.

"...256MB of discreet graphics."

Yes, I appreciate my graphics being discreet, especially when I'm looking at something rathet naughty on my monitor.

For email, surfing and watching videos Vista buys me what? And this is a reason to go out and but your minimal requirements equipped pc with 256mb discrete video ram.

You buy your own pc? You have lots of disposable coin? You shill for harware makers?

You're Aunt Estella may not think her WinXP is broken, but I sure wish it would stop spewing spam into my inbox :-)

While admittedly Vista isn't going to make this problem go away, I suspect it may make it better.

In addition, Vista's built in parental controls should have every parent considering an upgrade.

And the fact that using the in-box backup software I was able to create a 3-DVD set that I could use to go from scrap-heap to fully functional in about an hour (I tested it) should have every home user that has never done a backup thinking about an upgrade.

And the VA should be upgrading every laptop and using the full-disk encryption (with TPM)
option for sure!

Any organization that still gives out Administrator rights on a wide basis should have already upgraded ... after all, when you stack the cost of having all your proprietary data that makes your business worth something stolen against a the cost of an upgrade, you might decide you can't afford not to upgrade. (And sure you can get there with XP, but if your not there yet...)

I personally have found quite a bit of value in Vista... sure, I can take it or leave it for the side bar and the aero glass stuff... but there are real improvements hiding in there under the fluff.

For my needs I have not heard any compelleing reason to upgrade from XP to Vista. I am not a bleeding edge type of guy but if there is functionality that will improve my software experience then I am for that. But even with a compelling reason to go to Vista there will be some time to work out the security flaws and the interface issues and I don't have the time to keep adding fixes and testing. Lastly, Vista will eventually become the OS that is preloaded onto every new PC so even if I don't upgrade now I am certain that my next laptop will have Vista, "resistance is futile"

Hard to upgrade corporately when no version of SQL Server or MSDE work on it. SQL Server 2005 SP2 still doesn't have a release date. MSDE, SQL Server 7 and SQL Server 2000 don't work and never will. Many layers of MDAC have been removed. As a consequence most corporate IT application simply don't work and never will. What do the Vista developers have against database connectivity?

For that matter no version of Visual Studio works with Vista and most versions never will. So you can't use it for software development using MS tools either.

Who's left? I guess just browsing the web, but IE 7 renders too many websites incorrectly.

cool, my little sisters are in a ,,unique class of highly educated computer users.''

(they don't even know that the are running linux)

Based on your logic, we should change pretty much because change exists. Of course some change is going to be resisted. We do have other things to do, like take a deep breath once in awhile.

Self proclaimed technology journalists and experts seem all too prepared and have historically written articles which preach this.

Of course, it's easy to sit back and hit the publish button (with a deadline looming), and easier still to suggest that every IT department evaluate Vista because you say so.

We live in the real world out here, one which includes a well documented history showing that jumping on the next change is frought with danger, frustration and unreliable expectations which all the experts failed to mention by the way.

"simply too resistant to change"

just can't see the point of polluting the worlds already huge PC graveyard...

"a remarkably better experience than Windows XP"

so you bought a really useless car, you hated it, it used loads of petrol, you cursed at it all the time. Then the manufacturer brings out a newer shinier model, would you still buy from the same manufacturer, arguing that its better than the junk they gave you last time, or would you go and find a better car manafacturer?

I'm using Linux, the flavor is irrelevant. Its a bit like having the manafacturer coming to you every 6 months and saying: "using the same amount of fuel, we could give you something better, faster, and all you need do is give us back the old car, no extra fees!, all your old stuff still works"

"It's time the ostrich took his head out of the sand about costs and turned his tall neck to the sky and look around at the possibilities."

the dark red smog filled polluted sky, the mountains of dead PCs, the wasted money, ...where are the tangible productivity benefits?, where are they for XP vs. 2000 vs. NT?

"their in-house customized applications, which they will need to test."

this compatibility is why machines all over the world are still running NT, 95, 3.1, and for machines that require no user input, no interactivity, why upgrade? how do you justify the costs.

So the class of user you think would upgrade to Vista are those who have several iPods. Amazingly enough, the vast majority of consumers don't have several hundred dollars extra to have a more stylish OS (or extra overpriced DRM proprietary music system), and I know many people who only use their computers for email and web surfing, which doesn't require all the bells and whistles you're touting.

Get back to the world of the regular consumer--if the function is not necessary, don't add it to the mainline product, and have people who want it pay for it so that those of us who don't want the pay for the bell development don't have to.

I remember many of the same comments being made about the push to XP, including the hardware requirements. I played around with it but didn't upgrade any machines that I cared about until SP2. I imagine that my response to vista will be the same...ho-hum...

Your appeal to shame ("Unfortunately, most people don't much like change.") is TOTALLY lost on us - we're geeks for crying out loud! We THRIVE on change!

The central question for corporate adopters (remember them? They're the ones that make Microsquish's payroll!) is WHAT COMPELLING INTEREST IS THERE FOR US TO UPGRADE?

The company I work for now has a 1% compliance to hardware prerequisites demanded by vista. In simple terms that means that we would have to replace 1500+ laptop computers incapable of meeting the necessary requirements and upgrading RAM and video on 4500+ PC's (that incidentally just received RAM upgrades less than one year ago). Short answer - this is one company that won't even explore vista for at least two years. Add eighteen months to two years to develop an implementation plan and you quickly see that they likely won't invest in vista at all in favor of whatever comes next.

Let's see... change to something new with less functionality for the sake of change and hoping for the best down the road, meanwhile, spending tons of $$ to help poor MS, and software and hardware developers produce new compliant products you can also purchase for more $$... for an overall net gain in ... what was that again ?
wtf is wrong with this picture ?
Let me make this here new car, except only 3 of the 4 wheels work at this point, but you HAVE to buy it, because I've spent the last 5 years developing it, and. well, you just HAVE to...it's NEW, and BETTER (somehow)...
Ah, marketecture...
Unless money does indeed make the world go 'round, gawd knows I'd hate to be the one to promote global stoppage... That's even worse than global warming, you know.
(... or are we back to global cooling yet ? I've simply not kept up with latest bandwagons, sry)

Foolish. Businesses don't resist change because of some silly notion that it's "too much trouble."

The point you miss entirely is what IT is for. IT departments are not there to install servers and DS3 lines, etc. That is their TASKS. Their purpose is to make sure that the breadwinners of the organization don't have to take the day off because their computers are not working. IT is an expense for most companies, not a profit generator.

So IT people need to get off their tech horses and realize that if it works, don't go tinkering with it to eek that last 2% of performance out of a system at the risk of destabilizing it. If the OS gets the job done, don't change it and disrupt a working business system that is making the money for the company.

In other words, IT people need to get their focus back and realize they are a SERVICE to the other employees of the company. And if you're doing things that disrupt the ability of the moenymakers to make the profits, you are not doing your job.

I have decided that windows XP is gonna be the last windows OS I use at home, I dislike vista's WGA pretensions and I don't think I'll ever need useless features such as aero or the nanny that thinks that all of windows' security issues are the user's fault.

Why would anyone here argue with this guy. He is owned by MS and is just another mouthpiece

If we should bother with evaluating Vista, since change is good and the TCO argument is bogus, then we should also be seriously considering other platforms to replace Windows.

I say this because it seems like all the arguments Microsoft gives against evaluating other platforms also apply equally to Vista. I find this amusing.

Man, Finally I got to read some article from an intelligent eWeek editor (Joe Wilcox). I have no clue how his colleague Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols ie employed by eWeek and gets paid to write some junk and illogical stuff.

Great point and I will use this to convert more enterprises to the Linux Desktop and away from Microsoft. Thanks!

"Too many businesses, like the people they reflect, are simply too resistant to change. There is too much willingness to run just any old thing, because change is viewed as too much trouble. There is a culture of impedance, of friction to change, among many larger businesses. Disturbing: Some trusted advisers, spouting acronyms like TCO, preserve the culture of unchangingness by way of their guidance."

Couldn't say it better than the above.

There is a very small percentage of the population willing to dish out a couple thousand dollars to be able to say they have the newest OS and computer on the market.

Most of us actually USE our computers for something. And "upgrading" to Vista doesn't help us use our computers any more or any better than XP does.

Gamers will soon be forced into this by the whole DX10 fiasco... Gamers have been ripped off for years though. Everything they get sold works poorly, has an incredibly short life span and is not only expensive in it's self but demands other components be upgraded to expensive versions as well.

This is not how you build a customer base which will give you long term success.

"I challenge every IT organization to make the same evaluation--upgrade and see what Vista does or doesn't do for you."

IT orgs don't make decisions based on challenges, nor just to see what happens. This whole piece comes off as weak koolaid-induced argumentation pretending to be serious analysis. Vista will be the right upgrade at the right time in the right orgs, but this attempt to dumb down the decision process with generalities about technology being "personal" and intrinsically in need of the next upgrade is sophmoric. In short, I doubt anyone in your target audience is able to take this confusing argument seriously.

To switch or not switch is not merely a technology decision for me. I spend 90% of my day in Photoshop. As a pro photog, I need speed in my workflow process or I will never complete a job. I will upgrade when I am convinced that Vista will run Photoshop faster than what I do now with XP. My XP + Photoshop experience is very reliable. Can Vista maintain my comfort level AND increase my productivity?

Joe:
You have got to be a Troll on this one, and a Troll in a cave.
The biggest companies in the US are just getting
out of WIN2000, and into XP. Why is that?
Could it be with the advent of Vista, XP is a bargain?
Can companies the size of GE and IBM realize at least 5 years of bug-free reliability out of XP?
Will MS continue to support it?
Call me reluctant to change, but there's real value in XP right now, lots of it.

Excellent article and message overall. Certainly most internal IT at corporations are too institutionalized in sticking with what works (ie what they're personally trained with, rather than what they'd have to re-train to support) rather than finding the right tool for the job. I'm also glad to hear Microsoft put in a final push to improve things a lot between RC1 and GM.

One nitpick I have is the comparison between the transitions to Vista and Mac OS X: I think a Mac System 6 to 7 comparison would be more accurate (if dated). Mac OS X was a case of replacing one kernel with another (the "Classic" Mac OS kernel with its mid-eighties-era design in favor of the much more capable Mach+BSD XNU kernel). The Mac OS X transition was bound to be rougher because it was a much more severe change. The transition to System 7 involved taking the existing kernel and significantly upgrading it with newer technology, which is a much closer parallel to what's happened with Vista. Like Vista, System 7 had (for the time) exorbitant hardware requirements (which left new-but-low-end Macs in the dust) and broke backwards compatitibility with many key applications.

"The question reflects a sentiment I hear too often as an excuse for keeping old technologies in place--long after their real usefulness is gone."

I guess that all depends on one's definition of a product's "usefulness". I have an old laptop that came with, and still runs, Win98SE. [Yes, I have AV sw and a firewall running on it.]

I keep it in the living room in case I want to check my email, or browse the interwebs while watching 'Lost'. I find it plenty useful for what I...uh...use it for. Oh, and it still runs Office 97 just fine too, which is plenty useful for my needs.

Of course its not my main box, but it does what it does just fine. You saying I should go spend $1500 just to replace this old laptop which does what ti does just fine?

Why?

It's going to take a lot more than an Apple OS X rip off interface to get me to upgrade to this giant. I've tested this several times during the beta and have put my system back to XP everytime. Even with a 3gb, 512mb video card and 2.48ghz processor this thing is a hog. I'll use my Mac for the pretty interface thank you! Microsoft as usual is advertising this a more secure OS as well. Hmmm, I remember another OS from 2001 that had the same claim. I've lost count of the patches that I've had to apply to it. Upgrading for the sake of upgrading is crap. From a corporate perspective it will be a very long time before my company upgrades to this. It took more than a year and a half for us to upgrade to XP from Windows 2000 and NT 4. You can call this version 3 but it's still a 1.0. Any bets on how many patches will be out during it's first 6 months?

Change will come. Once the teenagers have the chance to play their games on Vista, they will buy whatever hardware is needed. Then the IT resistance will melt down.
And of course many corporates will run on 9x and 2k, but MS works for the masses. And when those teenagers go to college they'll want to use Vista in the labs. They are just not as wise as you gurus. Change will come.

I have been using Microsoft OSes since the days of DOS 2.0 and I have seriously tried Vista. I have my MCSE and support Microsoft users all day long. I have to say that I do not agree with you at all, Vista does not make the average user more productive, it actually slows them down because they have to relearn how to do most things. And the licensing scheme and the validation hassles even for corporate users is totally out of hand. I have switched my personal desktop machines to Ubuntu and I couldn't be happier.

Most of you completely miss the point about Vista! You're taking a personal perspective instead of a group productivity perspective. From a group perspective I see immense value in Vista's many enhanced collaboration tools, more highly integrated applications, extended search capabilities, etc., which will significantly enhance any organization's or team's capacities and capabilities.
As IT professionals surely we should be beyond fussing over cosmetics and instead looking at the IROI suggested above. [BTW, the Aero Glass technology is available to all applications: it's not just Vista's pretty interface].
Step back and take a look at the productivity of your clients and their workgroups and see how Vista and Office and Exchange Server could improve it ... your personal preferences and hobby horses are all but irrelevant: it's the efficiency and effectiveness of your organization that should be the primary driver.

[I always wonder why people who don't like change still work in the technology business!].

I'm a technology (IT) manager, totally in love with the latest and greatest, but it's very clear in all but the most radical companies that whatever gets the job done at the lowest cost and with the least risk will rule most every time.
Most companies can ill afford to embrace the latest and greatest New Thing. The New Thing may improve things dramatically, which would be good, or it could disrupt the business, causing financial loss, unhappy customers, etc, which would be very bad.
From what I've heard about the relatively little Vista offers the user over XP, the big hardware footprint it requires to be productive and a non-trivial learning curve, it's highly unlikely my firm will jump on this anytime soon.
It's not that we're Luddites - far from it. It's just that keeping the company thriving has less to do with what technology we run on our desktops than how we can please our customers.
I also think Microsoft has made a big mistake in issuing so many flavours of Vista as well - bad enough we have 3 flavours of XP - now we're going to have to choose from among what - 8 versions? I wonder if you can migrate from Vista version to a different version - I don't believe you can go from XP Home to Professional... bad idea by itself.
Merry Christmas and Happy Hannukah to all!

People's fear to change is the first reason why they dont give GNU/Linux a chance. Nowadays GNU/Linux isn't an operating system for "highly educated users". If u can have same features in a modern modes PC using GNU/Linux + XGL why buying a super computer to use a systema that has 9 different ways of turning it off? GNU/Linux walks with new technologies, first problem with it is that most hard manufacturers dont want to provide hard specifications for drivers programming.
I use Ubuntu 6.10 with a PIV 256 mb. That computer isn't to old like to change it. And Vista will never run decently on it. The funny thing is that i get same features or even more. So, it ain't broken, and works better, why should i change?

While I provide computer support for very small businesses, not large corporations, I suspect the bottom line in the same in both. Business users want their computers and software to help them get their work done and otherwise stay out of the way. They want to spend as little time and money on upgrades and learning new software as possible so they have more time and money to spend on their actual business.

I have clients still using Windows 98 and Windows 2000, often with application software just as old. It gets the job they need done and it is already paid for. Vista isn't even a blip on their radar -- nor is there any solid business reason why it should be. The expense of upgrading just can't be justified given that what they have now does the job they need it to do.

People should change, but in the right direction. I think open source software is that right direction we are waiting for. We as consumers are going to have to learn how to use Vista, why not learn to use KDE or Gnome. They are excellent programs. Or why not simply skip the Vista upgrade and just upgrade their machines. XP runs great, runs everything well. I am personally using Windows 2000, with Arch Linux on the side. I have a 1988 Acura Legend that takes me where I need to go. I could probably get another car, but why? When I can keep maintaining this one. Why make people spend money on stuff they don't need? I think this is one of the main problems in this country. (US) Overspending money we don't even have. And we have companies like Microsoft that copy products and add minimal usability to their products and charge an arm and a leg for that. I don't think we should even think about starting to think that we should begin to consider Vista probably until support dies for XP or 2000 for that matter. I think once this sinks in, yeah, we should probably upgrade. When is that, 2010 or so. I can see it happening then when I will get a new computer that can handle Vista easily and that Vista's successor is on it's way out to the public. I agree that no one should be running 9x systems anymore because believe me I tried them and they suck. Crashing all the time. Memory problems. But when 2000 came out, Microsoft shot itself in the foot and the business model they had going isn't looking so attractive at this point. People are happy with what they have and who are you to tell me what I need to do. You get paid to tell me what you think, but that's no reason that everyone should jump on board just because you said so. Besides, what you said doesn't make a lot of sense to me and I guess to most people. You are basically saying that "I know what you have works great for you, but I think you should pay more for this newer, slower, thing that you also have to pay more money for hardware and only has a better theme and some upgrades components you will probably never need, so throw away your money, keep your kids hungry and rack up that credit card bill buying whatever bull Microsoft tells you." You should be telling us to wait and see how everything goes. Wait until Service Pack 1 or even 2 to upgrade. Don't be a tester for bull**** software. Force Microsoft to really innovate or else we will always be in this endless cycle of crap products, virii and many other things we don't like. Well I'm waiting for vlite to mature. *End of Rant*

Joe ... what a thought provoking piece, you have written, well done ... keep it coming !
People may not agree with it, but it has got them thinking about it though... and as one of the commenters has said "change is inevetable" !

The question reflects a sentiment I hear too often as an excuse for keeping old technologies in place--long after their real usefulness is gone.

So I wounder why you didn't bother to switch to MacOS or Linux years ago? Are you a payed MS shill?

it's tough to sell products that most customers already own--yet Microsoft does just that.

I completely agree. Customers of MS products must feel like idiots that they have to pay for products they already own over and over again.

I'm noticeably more efficient using Windows Vista and Office 2007, and I enjoy working on a computer for the first time in years.

As I said: you should have switch to a better OS years ago (It's especially funny that MS shills aways claimed that e. g. XP is fun and productiv but as soon as Vista materialized, all of a sudden the same XP is boring and unproductive. Shill schizophrenia?).

And what is the relation between your personal experience with Vista as a home user on one hand and business productivity and TCO on the other?

If you've been in the IT business long enough, remember back to when you upgraded the business to Windows 95 and Office 95.

Ah I see: somebody who's IT knowledge is limited to MS OS only. I remember CP/M, buddy and I call your point bullshit.
1. Never change a running system is a golden rule that still applies.
2. Most companies have learned the "never install a .0 version" the hard way because of overly enthusiastic IT-"Pros"

Hardware requirements.

What has FCPro (a professional video edition tool laid out for Pros on Pro-hardware) to do with Vista as OS which will most of the time be used for writing letters and generating business reports?

look around at the possibilities.

Agree. Look around and realize that there are better OSes out there with lower hardware requirements and see the possibilties. Throwing out hardware just because MS wants to sell its new OS is - well - stupid

The 1.0 release.

We heard the same stories about security and how well everything is when they MS tried to convince companies to switch to XP. Is it anything differnt now with Vista? Only a fool does not learn from the past.
(And: what has the shortcommings of OSX 10.0 to do with Vista? - BTW OSX 10.0 was meant as a parallel install to OS9 which had DVD support, so the situation is hardly comparabel to Vista).

To come to your final statement:
If there's a major reason why people wouldn't upgrade to Linux or MacOS or Solaris or whatever fits your needs, resistance to change is going to be it. As I stated at the start of this counterpoint, that's the wrong reason.

The question reflects a sentiment I hear too often as an excuse for keeping old technologies in place--long after their real usefulness is gone.

So I wounder why you didn't bother to switch to MacOS or Linux years ago? Are you a payed MS shill?

it's tough to sell products that most customers already own--yet Microsoft does just that.

I completely agree. Customers of MS products must feel like idiots that they have to pay for products they already own over and over again.

I'm noticeably more efficient using Windows Vista and Office 2007, and I enjoy working on a computer for the first time in years.

As I said: you should have switch to a better OS years ago (It's especially funny that MS shills aways claimed that e. g. XP is fun and productiv but as soon as Vista materialized, all of a sudden the same XP is boring and unproductive. Shill schizophrenia?).

And what is the relation between your personal experience with Vista as a home user on one hand and business productivity and TCO on the other?

If you've been in the IT business long enough, remember back to when you upgraded the business to Windows 95 and Office 95.

Ah I see: somebody who's IT knowledge is limited to MS OS only. I remember CP/M, buddy and I call your point bullshit.
1. Never change a running system is a golden rule that still applies.
2. Most companies have learned the "never install a .0 version" the hard way because of overly enthusiastic IT-"Pros"

Hardware requirements.

What has FCPro (a professional video edition tool laid out for Pros on Pro-hardware) to do with Vista as OS which will most of the time be used for writing letters and generating business reports?

look around at the possibilities.

Agree. Look around and realize that there are better OSes out there with lower hardware requirements and see the possibilties. Throwing out hardware just because MS wants to sell its new OS is - well - stupid

The 1.0 release.

We heard the same stories about security and how well everything is when they MS tried to convince companies to switch to XP. Is it anything differnt now with Vista? Only a fool does not learn from the past.
(And: what has the shortcommings of OSX 10.0 to do with Vista? - BTW OSX 10.0 was meant as a parallel install to OS9 which had DVD support, so the situation is hardly comparabel to Vista).

To come to your final statement:
If there's a major reason why people wouldn't upgrade to Linux or MacOS or Solaris or whatever fits your needs, resistance to change is going to be it. As I stated at the start of this counterpoint, that's the wrong reason.

Joe
Why aren't you an anti-MS this time? Wouldn't it be easier to be anti-MS? You have a ton of supports. Your sudden switch would make many Mac and Linux-lovers angry. Don't do that. You should keep them happy in their own reality.

The software told me it needs windows95 or better, so I installed Linux.
That's the point, I installed Linux to many deffinitely non-techies and all of them are happier than with windows previously, not deppending on version they previously used.
I changed to Linux around 1998, I was a bit experienced user of NT4, it did the job, most of DOS and windows games were working, all applications I thought I need run smoothly. The DirectX version 6.1 or 7 (not sure) came out and it was not compatible with NT4 and by M$ words I was forced to upgrade to windows95 (98 were not completed at that time). I told myself, this is complete nosense, why the hell should I change my shiny expensive NT4 for ugly, unstable and slow 95? So I tryed another approach and althought M$ told me repeatingly it's impossible, I managed to run that damn directx on NT4. I did a very deep dive into the system, I manualy changed some libraries (partly taken from w95), did many changes in registers to finaly install it.
Well, it worked - games vere running faster than on 95 on the same hw as usual and had no problems. There vere some nasty messages in the system log, but who cares? Well, there was a problem, even notepad was unable to run. So I managed to change a stable working system into gaming console, loosing it's original abilities in a way it's creator told me is impossible.
So, M$ lies in any case, you are microsofie, so you lie as well. Good night.

Does seem interesting that Joe Wilcox doesn't reply to any of these comments or posts. Is it the weekend.....or he can't be bothered?

However, it is interesting from an application compatibility point of view that M$ bought Softicity. This allows you to virtualise an app irrespective of the underlying Wintel OS.

Obvious they saw the apps issue coming with Vista and are willing to sell you a "fix" ;)

IROI or TCO ... Potato - potaaatoo. Whats the difference? Thats a pretty thin point to base an argument on.

Being a former financial controller, I fully understand the argument for thinking about IT as a contributor, but if anybody pithced it like that to my face, I would ask them to present something concrete, and not an argument based on semantics, and rosy points that sounds like they've been scraped off a Microsoft powerpoint slide.

I used to represent the business and from that pov IT is really nothing more than just another business support tool. I see sooooo many of my colleagues that just havent understood that.

Afterall ... IT is no more (or less) important than the building housing the company, the machines producing the goods, or the trucks that actually deliver goods to customers, etc. etc.

Should we really move to a new building every time a new trend in architecture evolves? Well .. maybe we should ... If it can be *proved* that it would help the *business*.

I have worked with MS client and backend products for the last 7 years, and are generally a bleeding edge, new tech loving guy. But honestly. Tell me exactly WHAT feature of Vista will give os a IROI worth looking at.

And again ... Who cares at that point if its called ROI or TCO? As long as it saves costs or enables businees to increase or establish sales.

ONLY if one of those two cases are true should money be spend on IT. If not ... spend your money on other parts of the calue chain where they might give a better payback, and forget about IT investments for a while.

Sigh ... stepping off the soapbox now :)

The first couple of sentences of this article highlight how faulty the author's reasoning is. He claims that "if it isn't broke why 'fix' it" is just an excuse to keep on using technology after its "real usefulness is gone". Certainly any technology that is no longer useful is 'broken' and should be 'fixed', but that doesn't mean that technology is automatically obsolete and useless as soon as anything newer is released.

What the author needed to do was explain why Windows XP should be considered "broken" and why Windows Vista is required to "fix" it. He failed miserably in my opinion.

I find it amazing that the author emphasises aesthetics as a significant reason to go to the expense (in time and money) of switching OS. As if it's as trivial as buying a new cell phone when you want one in a different colour, as if that's even a decent reason.

I'd need to see something much more compelling that that to convince me that Vista is worthwhile. Unfortunately the article is very vague when it comes to describing the real benefits of Vista. The author claims that he is happier after switching, but doesn't back that up with any reasons. Maybe a placebo effect, created by the belief he seems to have that newer is always better?

Not switching to a different product when the advantages it offers aren't worth the costs isn't "fear or change", it's simply common sense.

I don't see why everyone is getting so worked up about this forgettable article - this guy is a shill for microsoft - he gets paid to give their crap good reviews.
Who reads eWeek? Tech ignorant managers; he is talking to them; not us.

100% of my clients reply with the same answer when I ask them if they're upgrading to Vista.

"What's Vista?"

"Man, Finally I got to read some article from an intelligent eWeek editor (Joe Wilcox). I have no clue how his colleague Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols ie employed by eWeek and gets paid to write some junk and illogical stuff."

James: You're hung like a peanut! Go play in traffic.

My 6 month old P930 D (dual 3000GHZ) HP Media Center is already outdated - it only has 1.5 GB RAM - so vista is not a good option (until I upgrade), and this machine was rated "one of the fastest machines we've seen" at pcpitstop.

Eye candy isn't reason enough for the average home user to upgrade, and it surely won't convince the corporate world. Guess I'll get a new linux distro - my slackware 7 could be upgraded to 11 for free - beats the heck out of spending another 2 grand on a vista compatible machine. Given the learning curve, I think most IT departments will find it easier to deploy SLED than Vista - which is more like XP than vista is for the end user.

While there may, or may not, be a good reason to upgrade the simple fact that it is new is a poor reason. Especially if one considers the premium level of quality displayed by this vendor's previous products. My advice to everyone is wait for service pack 2. They finally got XP working, and I do not think operating systems should drive hardware. Applications maybe, but not OSs.
The idea that the only reason to change is because some talking head who hawks for Microsoft will call you a luddite, is actually a good reason not to do it.

Hey Joe!

Anyway about this article, about Vista, and all the hype. I have the fastest Intel Dual core chip with the best memory and the new nVidia 8800 card. Using the fastest ATASerial Seagate drive available with speed to burn, I got the "Business Version" of Vista.

Yeah, Vista looks real good until looking at the performance data of testing the operating system. The Vista performance is terrible and the graphics a bit buggy now and then. Running the system GUI at the minimum setting seemed to help somewhat, but that defeats the purpose. I swapped out the identical drive and ran my XP Pro 64 which creams Vista Business in ever aspect, drive seek times, DirectX performances, hey even the very best Creative Lab card lost its "hiss, crackle, pop" sounds I was hearing in Vista.

So why do people want to spend up to $400.00 for Vista?

You really got me. Now I did my homework, and one could argue that "Well the drivers are a bit buggy and need some work for Vista." I say that's bunk and I am sticking with XP 64. Maybe I'll give Vista five years before I buy it, maybe then I can get the same kick butt performance I am getting from XP 64 Professional. To me, Areoglass is nothing more than eye-candy that does nothing for the performance freaks like me. Unfortunately DirextX 10 will only be available for Vista users. Will Microsoft address the high-overhead hit on performance, and what about the little guys out there that are barely running 64 bit low-end machines in 32 bit mode, and what about those folks still running 32 bit processors? Boy, even with the introductory Home Basic with its performance issues will drive these guys nutz. You know Joe, nobody out here is talking about processor usage, the demands on the processor in comparision with XP. It seems opening notepad in Vista may require more "juice" to open in Vista that XP. Hey, that's just a slight illustration there... Look at the performance comparision to say something like photoshop CS2 in Vista and compare it to the CPU load in XP. Why is XP less of a processor load than it is in Vista?

I know, too many variables for some, but for me, the answer is Vista is to "top heavy" or not streamline enough just yet. Suppose we give Vista a six months or a year, SP1 will be released. Remember when SP2 for XP came out, things began to run a bit smoother after the intial breakage from Microsoft.

Again, $400.00 is too much to pay for an operating system. True, buying a machine with Vista "pre-loaded" is the best bet. I need more than eye-candy Joe, I need performance, stability, and steadfastness. Something, at this time that Vista is lacking.

I know we will begin to see more performance data rather than these "features" and showroom crap, lets get into the facts and figures, performance comparisions, and you'll find out quickly that Vista as of right now is all dressed up and no where to go.

Well it's been fun "testing" vista and I got to give my full report and re-format my test drive.

Hey from a guy that really tested this -- Oh yes, I know there are things I forgot, and its fair to say XP back five years ago, people were complaining about it too, heck I was one of them. But I only spent $200.00 for XP Pro -- Then 64 came. Joe I'll be back in five years to complain about the new version of Microsoft just like everyone else.

Joe: That's not an "argument", that's a "feeling". Oh... I see... I'm a little slow on the uptake tonight. Your point is "There is no 'argument' for upgrading to Vista right now." Got it... Finally!

I've tried the released version of Vista. Nope: Sorry... Too slow. Too fiddly. Far too many inane nagging dialogs. In fact: using Vista is a continual frustration of nagging dialogs. I find myself pleading with it to just do something -- anything -- without asking for permission and then for confirmation of that permission.

Yes, I am going to upgrade. Right after Christmas when the prices drop. But probably not to Vista.

Vista burns a hell of a lot more of the world's energy in producing glitzy animations like "see through" dialogs. Wow...

It also leaves less of that power available for running applications and doing useful work. Everything is slower on Vista: File opens, downloads, rendering, graphics editing, pagination in Word. Using Vista is like pouring treacle. You can: but it requires patience!

The other contender (for me) is Mac OS X. That has been improving in efficiency version by version. The new version is substantially faster to do something really valuable to me: Useful work!

The people with the compelling reasons to upgrade to Vista right now are the hardware manufacturers, and Microsoft. Vista will be very good for them. But I must not confuse their need to sell me stuff with my need to have a computer that works efficiently.

Right at the moment, I can't give you a reason to bother with Vista. But I can give you a few reasons not to :-)

Cheers

I have rarely witnessed such shameless shilling for what can be arguably called another "improvement". The only advancement will result in the bottom line for M$oft, and yet another disruption for everyone else not seeing their net value improve. The marketing juggernaut rolls on, ignoring the fact that disruption and constant re-learning does not help productivity. Only the most rabid adherents of Say's Law can be happy now! Entropy rules.

Vista or Not?

Well, this is an easy one. NOT!! We just got some companies to switch to XP a little over a year ago. There is NO way they will fork out more money to upgrade there computer to run Vista. My Clients want an OS that runs good and XP is the OS for them. Vista is a memory HOG. Microsoft obviously did not do any marketing research before designing Vista. The only people that I know of that will have Vista are New computer owners. And some of them are switching back to XP so their programs will work.

I won't upgrade now.. maybe when the product releases Vista SP3.

Also, the other posters are right, why upgrade for the sake of the O.S?

Also, I'll upgrade if most (or all) of my friends, officemates, company upgrades to vista. And im definitely sure it will not be next year or the year after that.

Vista is just to costly right now. Hardware + Software = $$$$$ err..

A lot of words to say essentially nothing. You write,

"Unfortunately, most people don't much like change. If there's a major reason why people wouldn't upgrade to Windows Vista, resistance to change is going to be it. As I stated at the start of this counterpoint, that's the wrong reason."

Fine. I happen to agree with you that "resistance to change" is a simplistic, even "wrong" reason. But what are the underlying reasons for the resistance to change? You neither deal substantively with them nor provide any substantive reason _to_ change.

Just as blind, unreasoning resistance to change is stupid, so is blind, unreasoning embrace of change stupid.

ALL my computers are equivalent, in one sense, with my car or my washing machine: any of those machines that do what I want them to do (aren't broken, work just fine as they are, thank you) simply do not need to be replaced. I regularly use three different "flavors" of Windows and two different Linux distros on my own machines. They are all functional equivalents, and all of them do everything I want them to do as computers, though the Windows XP machines are admittedly just a tad more finicky than most. I _have_ no compelling reason to make Windows Vista my next OS, apart from becoming familiar with it so I can offer support to folks who foolishly jump on the upgrade wagon when they aren't even using the OS and application software they already have to its fullest.

*Yawn* I'll build a computer just for a WinV install and use the thing, but since I have NO NEED for it, it'll just be a toy.

(But I won't build it until after my next Linux-based media center computer is online.)

I tested Vista from the gate to the recently OEM copy I received. All I have to say is until Microsoft gets out of the DRM (Digital Rights Management) mold and telling me what I can watch, listen to or copy on my computer or the possibility of hijacking my office documents and hold them in ransom Vista will never be on any of my companies computers. I am a professional in the computer forensics field and if any tech reading this would do a complete test of Vista including what is sending and being received by your computer while operating Vista between you and Microsoft then tell me if you accept this policy. If you do then you do not know anything about computer security or a individuals privacy.
And I will back up anything I stated with proof of concept.

How much did Microsoft pay you to write this article? You still haven't given a compelling reason to switch now rather than get stuck with Vista when I next need a new computer. IE7? Give me a break. It's caused more problems on the machines that I've installed it on than I can name. Caused many a program, even XP itself in some places, to simply stop working. You think I'm going to say, "well, upgrading the browser helped so much I think I'll upgrade the entire os?" Not a chance. Encryption and better security? Had that in Linux for years now. Need to be a geek to run Linux? Hasn't been that way for some time. Need to be a hippie to run OSX? Only if you like computer operating systems that work.

I am excited about Vista. Why? Because, unlike some who consider Windows and PC's in general a means to an end, I love technology. I love ingenuity. I love creativity. I'm franky tired and bored with XP. Will Vista be expensive? The answer is NO. The upgrade to Vista Basic from XP is $99! Will you need to buy a new PC? NO!
Minimum requirements for Vista Basic is:
800mhz Processor
512 RAM
DX9 video card

Also you can upgrade from Vista Basic to the higher versions anytime.

Eat that all you Vista haters!!

I waited at least a year to upgrade from win98 to xp. There will always be a transitional phase for this sort of thing. Some people still use win98 to this day.

I think the question of whether or not you should upgrade an operating system should be kept separate from whether or not you should upgrade Windows or OS X (Of course there are others - these are just the two I use). Anymore, you can not buy just an operating system and, in my opinion, that is what makes them become obsolete so quickly. It is all the buzz of the day technology junk that makes todays operating system unusably old by the time you get it un-shrinkwrapped. All I want my OS to do is take my input and use my hardware. UI libraries, internet browsers, media players should all be components on top of the OS. If another department from the same company wants to bundle a media player in there - go ahead: but beat them over the head when they try to get the OS developers to code it in with what would otherwise be a clean and efficient OS.

Bad monkey. No bloatware.

Joe, I think you're are well rounded off in Microsoft comments and able to call it wrong when it is so. But in this case I have to hand it over to Steven.

I think, as others have said, that you start on corporate standpoint and move to a consumer standpoint to make your points. That is just plain wrong. I'd like to call out some statements of yours that just don't make any sense.

-"What about immediate return on investment? Not ROI but IROI..". What about immediate amount of investment (IAOM, if you'll allow me the expression). What is the relevance of IROI if I can't achieve IAOM?? From what I read a lot of Microsoft customers don't even have the money right now (IAOM) to make the switch. How do you expect them to worry about IROI???

-On the matters of monopoly. I don't care if Microsoft is a monopoly or not that is for others to settle. I do know that Microsoft has always been the dominant software developer on PCs because it controls the OS. Said in another way. It might not always have had the most troops, but it has always controlled the higher ground when it comes to desktop PCs (by PC I mean original IBM PC).

-"it's tough to sell products that most customers already own--yet Microsoft does just that.". So basically you agree with all us "non-Vista" migrators! Your saying that Microsoft sells us the same thing over and over again with no real added value.

-"lacking applications and drivers, compatibility problems, etc.--were way more problematic moving from DOS/Windows 16-bit to Windows 95. Yet many businesses made the commitment, because of perceived benefits." What in the world ever got into you Joe??? How can you compare a XP to Vista move to a Win3.11 to Win95 move or better yet a DOS to Win95. Not only because of the leap in technology, but also the technological setting. Technology wise the removal of so many features from Vista such as WinFS and Monad make Vista seem like a nice GUI upgrade to the average user. Secondly in the technology environment we have today we see alternatives such as Linux and OS X (Mac on Intel). Alternatives which, unlike OS/2, do have a relatively large and proven installed base (be it on the server or desktop arena respectively).

-"My minimum recommendation for acceptable experience: Intel Core 2 Duo or AMD X2 processor, 2GB of memory and 256MB of discreet graphics." Was it you who a few lines back wrote "The company's own priorities are more about business benefits, such as improving efficiency. "??? Is that computing efficiency or money making efficiency you talk about?? If I check the minimum for XP Pro I get

* PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
• 128 megabytes (MB) of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
• Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor

Now ((((128x2)*2)*2)*2) does equal 2GB. Now given that you cite Moore's law all those 2s add up to four 18 month periods (18=1.5 years, so 1.5x4=6 years) which equals 6 years of time. 2001+6=???? You got it 2007!!!! Now lets take a look at processors. (((300Mhz*2)*2)*2)= 2400MHz. Which would be on the mid to higher end of Dual core. A six year period of Moore's law calls for another 2 there. Taking it to 4800MHz. But hey they are dual core are they not??? So we should get an extra 2 for the "Dual". That makes four twos again!! Once again 6 years of Moore's law and back to 2007. And don't even get me started with the Super VGA vs 256 discrete RAM video card please!

There is no "efficiency" any way you look at it.

-"Supporting applications. The number of Vista capable, ready or native applications is immaterial. It's not how many, but the number you use. Steven throws around a 1,000 application figure like it's not enough. If you use one application and it doesn't work that's one too many." Hahahaha!!! This has got to be killing Microsoft die hards!!!! They must hate you by now. That's the line I've heard most from Linux and Mac supporters up an till today!

-"The 1.0 release. Vista compatibility and application support are way better than was Mac OS X, when released in March 2001." Vista also happens to be 2 years late in the best of scenarios.

-"Most users don't use Linux, like Steven does. His experience puts him into a unique class of highly educated computer users." Most users don't use Windows, like Steven does either!!! What is this deal of disrespectful denial of a user's capability. It sounds to me that you don't want users to move to something which could be potentially better for them just because you think they're too dumb for it??? If a person graduates from college, gets a good job and can afford a better car. Do you really think a dealer is going to say don't buy this car because you've never driven it before and you don't drive cars like Fernando Alonso???

Microsoft has been a great promoter of innovation over the years. Bringing it to the average consumer. Unfortunately it seems to be stuck in its own best interests (as well as those of its shareholders) and is a bit resentful of having its customers move to other platforms. So instead of moving to other platforms it prefers to restrain its customers from moving. Giving, as you say, "products that most customers already own". I as a customer prefer to move along and look at other alternatives thank you very much.

Jesus! I've never such a bundle of illogical, irrational, crap in my life.

Corporate America is OK with XP because finally the major bugs in 2000 got fixed.

Memory management is not too bad in XP. In W2K it was comparable to '95, a bit better .. a slight upgrade. XP is now light years ahead

Driver installs, a major problem since 3.1 were finally put under control by rollback... when it works.

Restore points do the rest. But thank god disks are so cheap!

But none of those would have been neccessary if the F'ing thing had been done right first time. Vista will not be the point where hsitory changes.. believe me!

Major technology advances have always taken 20 years. Because its tough to make it work. Significant improvements take 10 years. W2K is now a mature product and XP deserves the support of those who lived through the beta years from launch of 2K 'til last winter.

Let the geeks and hackers sort Vista out. I'm just in the process of upgrading to XP. W2k is faster and lighter and more flexible but there's no more support. Time to change ... sensibly, for a better product. Windows XP. Long may you prosper XP!

Bilou

XP has a good five years left now the big bugs have been

PS Thanks for the Troll, I needed that!

I find it amusing to now have read both articles from obviously two die-hard camps (open source fanatic vs M$ mouthpiece). I'm no M$ shill, but I'm not a big Linux/*nix fan either. The point, which has been bludgeoned to death by now, is that people don't want to have pay for more upgrades PERIOD! Recent processors and memory changes (DDR to DDR2) on both processor fronts urged everyone to upgrade. Right before that it was the move from AGP to PCI Express for graphics cards on motherboards (which required upgrading as well). Then they came up with SLI (two PCI E cards tied together on one motherboard), which, again, required a new motherboard. Its not the weak "resistance to change" scenario, but economics and frustration with trying to keep up with it all. Vista may become a standard down the road, just don't expect everyone to be lining up for it cash in hand. I finally broke down recently and bought a motherboard that has PCI Express, only because I knew that my Athlon FX-57 CPU (no not an X2) will benefit from the REUSE! (and the board price dropped again ;) ) Now I wait to find a decent price on a PCI E graphics card. I, unfortunately, am a gamer as well, it will be hard to not be able to play Unreal Tournament 2K7 after its release. They'll get my money.. eventually, but they will wait. Office97 and Open Office alone are tough reasons to switch. Huge Corps with workgroups that need collaboration already have tons of software to choose from that works well on XP.
The whole user "experience" thing is lost on me. I really get the feeling Joe's idea of "experience" is all about aesthetics and not functionality nor performance.
M$ will always expect the "herd" to follow marketing hype and shills as they go over the cliff. Such disregard is inexcusable!
Whether or not Vista is better or performs better has yet to be proven in the real world. Users will dictate that!
I'll reiterate what I'd said in response to the open source view: Do what works for you and use what works for you! We are the users, not the to be used.

XP "works" Vista will be more secure tha same a ME was to 98, Seems like a great way to sell more hardware & software little else. Kind of like a TV show on an IPod great.

getting a needed gamer computer,Winxp Pro OR Vista...
WinXP PRO,More useful and faster,less headaches