I wouldn't compare Vista as the old Elvis to XP the young elvis.

I think comparing Vista as the old Bruce Jenner to the young Bruce Jenner would be more acurate. Forgive me Bruce - I don't mean to put you down by mentioning you in the same sentence as Vista.

The Elvis analogy is only true if by "old Elvis" you mean post-16 Aug 1977.

XP was the Fat Elvis, but managed to put together enough eventually to become the 1972 MSG show, or at least "Aloha from Hawaii." That Office improved, on balance, from 1998 to 2003 was enough, and the security requirements aren't abusive.

Vista, if all goes well, will make OS X the best selling personal OS in history, as people who were stuck with Vista on machines that cannot take more than 2G of RAM swear never again to buy Compaq or Dell or HP laptops.

And a lot of those people are the husbands, wives, sons,and daughters of CIOs and other senior executives who make those migration decision, and are going to rightly and properly tell those "desktop professionals" which way the exit is--or, on repeated efforts (since the "professionals" Forrester interviewed appear clueless), what the URL for their local unemployment office is.

And, yes, I am locked in to MSFT soft- and hardware. But, for the first time ever, I wish I weren't.

Your stories all make me cringe with their wild inaccuracy. You and Vaughan-Nichols belong together.

In the Enterprise, its not perception but hardware requirements that are killing Vista.

No one wants to do a complete PC refresh just for it. Laptops(very popular), which are sorely behind in terms of performance(ridiculous actually), are unusable with Vista except the larger powerful ones(which most users hate due to weight).

I have had to replace enough machines just to keep up with Office 2007 which is well worth the upgrade for the greatly reduced document corruption if nothing else.

SP1 needed to make the OS lean and mean which it failed to do.

Corporations are not going Mac OS or anything else - it doesn't 'plug into AD' well as you claim. They will be like us - wait for either the hardware to catch up or Windows 7.

Windows XP will be just fine for 2 more years.

First:"Vista isn't a bad operating system...Vista is a mediocre operating system".
You are wrong, if it were free maybe (bang for buck)but it is not, it is expensive. You pay for quality if it doesn't do the work and still has problems, it's rubbish.

Second:"The Forrester analyst completely dismisses Linux or Mac OS X as alternatives: "Switching over thousands of users at a time from Windows to one of these alternative platforms is simply not a viable option."
Let see, if countries are changing, why not businesses? It's just a matter of need, planning and will.
(I don't know why, I just remembered the fall of the Berlin wall)

I concur with BlahBlah, OS X does not plug well into AD. It depends on the sacrifices the Administrator is willing to make to support OS X on their network, yes Active Directory supports Kerberos Authentication just like OS X, but often times, its the hardware cost that must be factored in to make a OS X end user happy. Meaning, you need to have a Mac OS X server installed as part of child domains to support the OS X client successfully authenticating on AD.

Vista is inevitable as Forrester notes, the increased reliability, better support for hardware, 64 bit mainstream support, and most of all security in addition to a more productive experience throughout the OS (Search, built in applications, backup and restore) will make it an attractive migration from Windows XP over time.

Vista seems to be selling quite well in the consumer space. At our local retailers (in NZ), I see nearly all of the machines in the brochures are advertised as coming with Vista. There might be an occasional laptop with XP, but that's about it.

As for Linux, don't forget the Linux ultralights (Asus Eee, HP Mini-Note etc) are making quite a splash. Once businesses start taking them up, I think it will be another way to get Linux into the enterprise.

@BlahBlah...seen the stories on IBM doing studies on deploying Macs instead of Windows...Macs might get some bite in the Enterprise space yet...

This coupled with the fact that Popular Mechanics have said again that the best laptop to run Vista is on a Mac should also make some oems nervous...

I learned a long time ago that a person's perception is their reality that may or may not reflect the 'real' world.

Quote;
"Gray takes a bean counter's approach to Vista adoption: There is no other choice. He explains that in Europe and the United States, 97 percent of SMBs and 99 percent of enterprises run Windows on the desktop. "For large businesses, there's no viable alternative," he concludes.

Gray's IT organizational advice sums up to this—in my words, not his: Suck it up. Vista is inevitable."
----------------------------------------------------
WOW, its the old worn out BORG arguement again. Vi$ta, you will be asorbed! I think not, Vista is not inevitable, wake up. It maybe a failure in the making if you start counting those who are leaving MSFT for having a part in making this train wreck known as Vista. But what can you say about MS Vista, which sold 100 million in the first year by being forced on the users as OEM? That it should now have about a 12% of the market share, but only has more than 6%? Sounds like a whole lot of folks were unhappy with Vi$ta to me, and removed it from their new machines.

Vista is not "inevitable," Windows Seven is due out soon in Mid 2009 by the words of Billy Gates, and then Vista will be Bye-Bye gone. Unless you count Windows Seven as just Vista2. Which indeed, it could be. And as far as Vista being an "Ok" operating System, Joe, I think you are mostly alone in the writting circles, on that one.

I am using Vista for the last 1 year now. My Initial experience with Vista ultimate was not good. It really sucked. But Now I am using Vista Business for the last 4 months, and the experience has really changed, especially after using SP1 also. I have completely shifted to VISTA Business. Its fast, responsive and no crashes at all. Infact ultimate version makes lots of services up, which may or may not be required by the user and that's why it sucks.

I have used Vista for a month now and feel no hesitation in agreeing that Vista sux. I say thin because I now have problems I never had with XP. Games bog down when playing multiplayer on the Internet, Messenger talk is so scratchy it's useless, I now have no choice but use "Live MSN mail" to do my e-mail and it sux bad. I could go on and on but will spare the ugly details. There simply aren't any benefits to Vista, but there are too may detractions.

And this is on:
QX9650, 8800GT, ASUS P5E3 Deluxe, CORSAIR XMS3 DDR3, WD RAPTOR, X-Fi Gamer, COSMOS 1000 case

Switching to MacOSX implies to change every computer. Switching to GNU/Linux does not. And it has already been done successfully by some company ...

@Andre Da Costa:

Your last statement doesn't hold water. "More productive experience" from Search, built-in apps, etc.? Hardly.

I've been using Vista for over a year now, and I've not been any more productive than with WinXP. This idea of Vista's improved productivity is just marketing BS.

As for increased reliability, my wireless connection continues to give me problems, even after SP1 and driver updates. I never had wireless issues with WinXP.

And, finally, if Vista has better security, it is apparently not enough to entice businesses. Being safer than WinXP is not the same thing as being safe.

In addition to using Vista and XP, I also use OS X and Linux. If you want safe, then I highly recommend OS X or Linux. I have never, *ever*, experienced a security problem with these platforms.

Fortunately you can still sign the petition to keep XP alive until a better OS from MS comes out

http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/

All that is necessary for the triumph of Vista is that good IT men do nothing

Joe, have you worked in business IT previously? (serious question--not meant sarcastically)

Almost every enterprise where I've worked or consulted has vertical/niche apps specific to their industry. AD-integration, Office support, and Exchange support does NOT make OS X a viable option. An emulator is not an option (Linux or OS X), because you will NEVER get the ISV to support it. And if you're just going to run Windows (virtualized, dual-boot, whatever) anyways, why not simply run only Windows in the first place? You're doubling your work--or more--by now having to maintain *two* very different systems, and you haven't even reduced your Windows management tasks at all.

The Apple hardware vs. other OEMs is a completely separate debate, but one Apple is exceedingly unlikely to win in the business market--unless they start selling machines with OEM Windows, and with machines geared towards typical business use (i.e., low to medium spec and low cost, but with decent build quality and easily replaceable parts and multiple service options).

bluvg wrote: "Exchange support does NOT make OS X a viable option. An emulator is not an option."

Microsoft provides the Exchange support for Office 2008. Surely Microsoft can support its own software.

Joe

MS Exchange is junk. The only reason it is so ubiquitous is because it is easy to install for knobs. Knobs, as in MS?? certification book techs. Of those book techs, 95% are mediocre at best. The other 5% are the real experts.

Of the MS-Exchange shops, 95% of their users never use the collaboration parts. Just like 95% of MS-Office users do nothing more than remedial spread-sheets and memos.

MS-Exchange is the nastiest pile of PST junk I have ever seen. A nightmare to backup. A nightmare to restore on failure. All Exchange is is a GUI interfaced sendmail but horribly designed.

There are far better open source alternatives to MSExchange. They are cheaper, better, faster, more stable and far easier to recover from after a disaster.

AD is not all that good either. It is just *easy* to install for the MS-Knobs. Most of them are mediocre at it as well, with the few and the proud being the true experts at it. LDAP and other open source alternatives do just as good if not better of a job.

Microsoft has mostly *decent* SW, but the cost does not reflect the quality. I will give kudos to their "Help" and documentation. That department of MS has their stuff together.

Microsoft licensing is like onerous at best. It *assumes* that you are a thief. Interestingly, the company that became ubiquitous due to piracy is so against piracy. Just like the recording industry. The recording industry is run by crooks and thieves. If a recording executive could get away with paying Celine Dion 1 penny for her music he would do it in a heart-beat.

More succinctly. You know yourself best, and if you are a crook, then everyone else is a crook. A great example of this is Las Vegas. A mecca created by thugs and because they cannot even trust themselves, they don't trust you, and that is why everything you do is monitored. Sting could have written "Every Move You Make" with Las Vegas and like minded MS in mind.

Joe--sorry if I wasn't clear, but you're misreading what I wrote. I'm not saying Exchange isn't supported on the Mac. I'm saying that Exchange support, AD-integration, and Office support together still does not come close to the entirety of application support necessary for most enterprise desktop/laptop computers.

Let me see, what OS X computers can I buy from Dell, or HP, or Lenovo? Hmmm...

After almost a year of Bus Vista the only operational differences that matter to me are it is somewhat more broken that XP was and its search is better but still awful compared to what it should be. But also, it seems to me to be wrong to target the MS execs who appear to be paying the price of this mediocrity with their jobs. The problem is that the current software construction system is self-limiting in terms of both complexity and ease of use and has reached about the limit of where it can be taken, even with all Bill's Billions and all Bill's men. Shooting the masons who are unable to build a 100 story building using stones and mortar is not the solution......

My problem with Vista is the total cost of deployment vs. the gain from its use.

Installation of Vista requires new equipment since it has increased hardware requirements, new specialized programs often needed since many programs in current use will not work with it. That includes many non-Microsoft programs, whose developers have not modified their programs to work with Vista. Also, many items of equipment will not work with Vista because drivers are not available.

Further, expensive training is needed for staff both as to Vista and new programs for Vista, such as Microsoft Word. My guess is that on an all in basis, including hardware, training, and lost time, it costs at least $5,000 a seat to deploy Vista. In most cases Vista and the new progams fix anoyances that were not really problems. Most of those anoyances could have been fixed with a new service pack. However, Microsoft cannot sell a service pack since service packs remedy admitted defects in a program.

Many of the advocates for Vista among both the equipment manufactures and IT consultants have a conflict of interest since if Vista is deployed in a company, it will force wholesale replacement of computers, and substantial expedutres for IT consultants to train employees in the new system and programs.

They'll have to pry DRM free XP from my cold dead hands...Screw Vista and it assuming everyone is a crook that needs to be monitored (and who exactly is it reporting to?). MAC OS-X and Ubuntu are looking better all the time to a lot of users...

I have to admit that I like XP and my initial experiences with Vista have been horrible. I've become a very big fan of Suse Linux and know that Ubuntu is gaining favor fast with my high school age son and his friends. Among my work and my small clients we are half Linux and half XP now, no Vista at all. Written materials are being developed and submitted with OpenOffice with no problems. OpenWorkbench has replaced Microsoft Project. Web-development is all on Linux machines now. By year-end only a few XP machines will remain to run some apps that are purely Microsoft based. Goodbye Microsoft, my older equipment will be just fine with open source.

Vista, Vista, Vista...

I have experience with both XP and Vista. None of my users liked switching to Vista. I have had nothing but grief (from hardware to the OS itself), Microsoft has turned me to the dark side (sorry George Lucas). My company has decided to keep XP and skip Vista all together. Not only will we wait and see we are simply choosing anything but Vista.

As for Microsoft forcing Vista (by discontinuing to ship XP to the OEMs) on the end users well I smell a class action legal battle brewing. This issue may be much bigger than the Empire believes.

Millions of voices will not be silenced this time!

The rebellion has begun....

Back in the 1950s, a guy named Juran wrote a little 5,000 page book, a consultants' manual on "Quality Control." Somewhere in there he made the comment to the effect of "you don't need to pay any attention to the USERS who have to do your stuff. You only have to please the idiot who writes your check. (paraphrased from memory)

Someone, quite obviously, found the idiot with the checkbook at Microsoft, when the "new" Vista/Office interface was being designed.

Vista probably has some features of value to IT professionals. The user interface is total CRAP.

When icons are all pastel colors with no contrast, and all the same shape, they require you to concentrate on the desktop to distinguish which one you want. No "corner of the eye snap to what you need." The interface is "pretty," but illegible and not useful unless you're a chimpanzee who wants a soothing decoration in the cage.

With only three color choices for background in Word 2007, at least one area of the toolbars is "invisible" (to me, at least) with each of the colors.

Canned "task oriented" menus(?) and "forced and limited formats" may be fine for a teenager who only needs to plagiarize a web site for a class report, (or for magazine editors who use a canned format that someone set up for them) but tool organized menus, are - and always have been - the preference for competent users. (IMO that's been one of the reasons for the difference in deployment/usage between Windows and Mac.)

While the tools may be mostly there (I just can't find most of them) they're splattered all over the place in multiple fragmented locations, so that virtually every common operation I've learned to perform on ONE menu in previous versions now requires separately accessing at least three separate top menus, with functions I NEED buried three to five clicks deep.

I've spent about 40 years using Word to write professional test reports and procurement specifications to Government requirements, and Word 2007 - so far as I can tell thus far - would PREVENT ME from producing documents that meet the requirements for those tasks. "Simplifying" forms is great in some places, but it simply doesn't work in all places.

As a Microsoft Office (principally Word) user since DOS, I've been a regular "consultant" user on a favorite website, and have spent the last decade trying to convince people who want to "add a new junk program" to "do something special" that Word can do that if you RTFM and learn how to use what you've got. I can no longer make that recommendaton.

I was "forced into" putting Word 2007 on my WinXP machine due to progressive "breaking" of functions by "WinXP security fixes" in my Office XP version. After nine months of effort, doing the best I can to figure out how to make it useful for my purposes I'm about ready to give up, and follow the crowd to Mac or Unix.

Office 2007 DOESN'T ALLOW THE USER to efficiently produce documents to any format or form appropriate to anything more complex than a high school term paper. (Even on WinXP. I'll get to it on Vista, which I have on my laptop, maybe in a year or two.)

Vista is not inevitable. I find that comment amusing beyond measure: Clearly, it IS avoidable because it's being avoided right now.

Vista does not run well unless you have a system that is so fast that you can't see the performance degradation. Vista runs various tasks in the backgrounds that XP never did: it runs encryption and DRM deamons to keep hollywood happy, it run tighter security checks around all IO activities like HDD access and network IO - there's not way for it NOT to be slower.

In the IT space, why would they replace a perfectly good OS experience in XP with a worse one in Vista? Vista is slower, it is more difficult to use (there is actually a learning curve: where did "properties" go? Well, it now called "personalize" or "information").

On the home PC side, gamers are avoiding Vista like the plague, save for a few who are trying to justify their purchase, or who think that they really need DirectX10. The overwhelming majority of them are just unwilling to take the 5-10% framerate hit by getting Vista. What makes it worse is that XP SP3 actually seems to improve XP performance significantly across the board.

Until MS comes out with an OS that can truely rival XP in both performance and reliability, they can expect low adoption rates.

Wow - if Vista is inevitable then the enterprise is in real trouble. I can deal with the hardware requirements (even though I don't want to) but we would HAVE to increase our support staff just to deal with the questions and issues surrounding the oddities of Vista. There is not one single productivity "must have" in it that you cannot find as an add-on for XP. XP is stable, blazingly fast on a modern pc, and secure. Not as secure as Linux for sure but with proper firewalls, policies, etc that any good IT department should have regardless of OS it is just fine and we have few if any security related issues.

We have close to 600 desktops and 50+ servers on our network and absolutely will skip Vista and see what is next in the MS pipeline. We are much more interested in spending our time/money on server consolidation, SAN deployments, and virutal machines than upgrading a perfectly good OS just because MS says it is time.

Does anyone remember Windows ME? - Vista is the modern equivalent of it - nobody wanted it and nobody needed it.

hi ,

i purchased a laptop with the vista premium pre installed on it. it was utter crap.

i changed the stuff, and put xp on it, though it was hard to find driver for that notebook but i did.

i am command line man and i installed then my lovely ubuntu on it. and it rocks mate.

linux is really getting in to the heads of big IT giants. read IBM website and there is so much stuff happening.

so why to bother about vista,throw the crap in the bin and use xp for better sake or ubuntu. just see how quick the response and action with satisfaction is.

cheers
geek