Microsoft has dismissed analyst house Forrester Research's report on slow corporate adoption of Windows Vista as sensationalist and schizophrenic. The reluctance of many enterprise-sized companies to upgrade their systems to Microsoft’s current OS was highlighted by Forrester analyst Thomas Mendel in his 23 July report. Mendel …
Customers paying to revert to XP
I guess that explains why I have so many customers willing to pay me to revert their machines to Windows XP. I would like to see a total of how many XP downgrades have been performed.
So my local vendor tells me that Microsoft has instructed them to just us any available XP key when performing a Vista to XP downgrade. If online activation fails then they are to call in and state that they are exercising downgrade rights. I consider this vendor a reliable source.
Paris, a reliable source paying for reversions.
Gentlemen, start your flaming!
in the blue corner: Microsoft fanbois
in the red corner: Microsfort hatorz
in the dressing room still trying to get their trunks on: Linux fanbois
I've got one of those
***"Redmond claimed to have sold 180 million Vista licenses to PC vendors and individuals so far."***
I have a Windows Vista Business licence for my shiny new Dell D830 laptop. There is a nice Vista licence sticker on the underside and a Windows Vista sticker on the keyboard (right next to the Core 2 Duo sticker) and, no doubt, MS claim this as one of those 180 million licences sold.
The computer is actually running XP Pro as a 'downgrade', however.....
At least it will do before I downgrade our excellent XP infrastructure to fistula.
Generally, I support our partners on earth, so I'm not going to go linux on the desktop either.
Coat today? You must be joking.
Microsoft out of touch
Microsoft is out of touch. Vista is a huge flop and all Microsoft is doing is spin. I hope they get it together before everyone switches to Linux.
I wish they would stop screwing with the administration interfaces so much. Changing the names on everything, putting it in different places...Its just annoying and lends the impression there is nothing new in the OS just a re-organization and re-naming of the same functions and features.
Don't even get me started on the "security" features.....
now that's funny...
"Redmond claimed to have sold 180 million Vista licenses to PC vendors and individuals so far."
First, forcing PC vendors to sell only Vista (though there is a loophole), then completely stop selling XP (though you can still validate your copy). I wonder how long they'll keep on using sales figures as an excuse/dellusion/substitute to LSD? Until someone slaps them (and the rest) w/ reality? Ofcourse you'll get a large sales figure if you almost completely removed other alternatives (MS OS only, please).
Don't get me wrong. I'm using Vista (64bit) and am quite loving it. But my specs? Oh my. Your average user will bleed money to get what I have. Ofcourse Vista will still run ok on "average" hardware (hhmmm.. "average", more like "above average" in reality when you consider what the rest of the world have), but don't expect it'll perform just as well as XP when it's bloated and also carries legacy apps. Customizability? Sure, only it fits with what Microsoft have in mind (Home, Business, Ultimate), and not what people actually need (1GB memory? Some services and functionality can be sacrified before installation begins, you OK w/ that? OK then, here you go).
Ok, enough w/ that. It's subjective. All I'm saying is that you can't handout B.S. like that if you don't provide a levelled playing field
Licences != use
We just acquired a PC for use in the lab at work. It came supplied with Vista, and so will be recorded as a Vista licence sale, but before it gets put into use, it'll be re-imaged with XP courtesy of the company site licence. None of the programmers and other gadgets we want to use in the lab work properly on Vista anyway.
"Redmond claimed to have sold 180 million Vista licenses to PC vendors and individuals so far."
Does it say how many customers opted to "downgrade" to XP or Linux after being forced to purchase Vista. Or how many of the licences have been registered [mine was not and I still haven't got my refund GRRRRR].
Paris: because even she has more angles
MS are making the doc available despite clear instructions not to? Come on Forrester, sue them for making illegal copies available for download!!
RE: Gentlemen, start your flaming!
And being a twat "in the middle": Anonymous Coward!
how many Vista uninstalls?
So of the 180M vista licenses how many have been chucked out?
I guess so many that MS only need an old 486 running red hat as the verification server.
Re: Microsoft Slams Report
People are probably waking up to the Fact that Linux is far more rock solid and they should really give that careful consideration before falling into the trap of Updates and Upgraded versions.
Last time I checked Windows Vista cost more when it came out than Windows XP Professional did when it first came out and as far as I know updates for Linux have always been and always will be free.
V.I.S.T.A - Viruses, Intruders, Spyware, Trojans and Ad-ware! No Thanks!!
I've still got my perfectly working legit copy of Windows 98 SE and I havent used it since 1999, the copy of XP home that came with my Laptop went straight in the rubbish bin in favor of Debian.
"sensationalist and schizophrenic"
Because Microsoft is always extremely sober and straightforward in its product announcements, roll-out declarations, licensing reshuffles and in-court mumblings.
I bet if...
M$ contact those 180 million users a large chuck would be on XP.
I wasted £460 on Vista only to upgrade back to XP a month later. More than a year on I still have no desire to have Vista back on.
Paris because I'd much rather turn her on than Vista.
having worked at a large enterprise customer who were just rolling XP out after Vista was released I can see the point of not pointing out how few enterprise customers have Vista yet.
Not quite sure why Kirk whould need all these copies of windows anyway...
Why are MS highlighting the lack of usage of Vista?
"How is this useful guidance to customers?"
Enterprise customers are not a bunch of sheep looking to see which way they other sheep jump. They have the resources to test Vista and decide for themselves if it suites them. The report would be useful guidance to Microsoft: Many enterprise customers are not making an effort to switch to Vista. As Windows 7 is planned to be more of the same, it seems reasonable that enterprise customers will put just as little effort into that.
Redmond claimed to have sold 180 million Vista licenses to PC vendors and individuals so far.
About 6 billion people are licensed to use GPL software.
Both statements are equally useless. How many machines actually run Vista? Even if all those Vista licenses were actually used, Vista would still account for less than 13% of internet usage.
Maybe one reason is that people don't want to spend money on upgrading hardware too. It's not like the average corporate user is going to be able to use any of the new features. All they need to do is run email and office apps.
re: danial and general vista fud..
i dont understand why people keep insisting that vista is insecure and an easy target for viruses and trojans..
vista has some issues but security is not oneof them. in fact vista is far more secure than xp ever was or ever will be. (check secunia if you dont belive me)
Yes it requres better hardware but so does every new operating system.
Yes its not exactly the same as xp and there are some new things you must learn, but again, this is true of any new os.
on vista level hardware vista is about the same if not slightly faster than xp performance wise, even though it contains alot more stuff.
its funny so see how everyone suddenly loves the crap out of win xp while just over a year ago they where bashing it to hellfor being so old, insecure and out dated.
vistas main problem is the marketing. thats the problem with microsoft in general imo.. their marketing sucks. simple as that. that said, there are other issues with vista as well, i can to this day not understand how it can take up 10gb of space. i just dont get it.
people looove to hate microsoft, and ive lost all hope that el, reg will ever publish an unbiast microsoft article, making things up that you know is not true is just FUD
yes, the very thing microsoft is always beeing accused of doing. (btw the "mojave" proect thing was really telling.. people only seem to hate vista if they actually know its vista)
why cant people simple express why they really think is bad about vista instead of making things up. thats just stupid childish fanboism..
I still remember how they pushed Netscape out of business claiming theirs was the only suitable browser to be used with Windows.
Then they got sued for trying to corner the browser market. Bit like when British Telecom claimed they owned the rights to hyper links and the Judge threw the case right out the door and as far down the road as possible.
Their new CEO Steve Ballmer was until recently selling his 12.5 Million Super Boat complete with golf course and helicopter pad claiming it was too small for his needs, is that why we're all being made to pay more for Windows upgrades? Are we buying him his new boat??
Now Steve be realistic as a boat owner myself, I can say that is a completely pointless exercise, a boat that size, your never allowed to pilot it yourself, so where's the fun in that?
Was it just me.
I quickly scanned the article and read it as "only 11 machines installed" rather than the 1 in 11.
Strange thing is 11 was a much more believable figure than 9.8%.
@ I bet if...
"I wasted £460 on Vista only to upgrade back to XP a month later."
Simon, why didn't you ask for your money back? "Merchantable Quality" anyone?
re: danial and general vista fud..
Al, you cant tell me vista dosnt have security problems, I work as a free lance pentester, VISTA has a lot more security bugs and problems than Microsoft would like to admit. If it didn't Steve Ballmer wouldn't be shouting that he wished security researchers would "Just shut up"
Have you not seen and heard about this recently highlighted bug which to date has still not been fixed and effects VISTA, XP etc etc
Another reason to go with Firef0x and throw IE (internet exploder) in the Bin. .
What I want to know...
... is how many of the machines that were surveyed are older than 18 months.
Most businesses will not upgrade the OS on an existing PC. It makes no sense for two reasons, one being that the system is already partway through it's lifetime (and asset depreciation), so why spend new money to replace the OS when the existing OS still works, and the other being that the machine will probably be less productive with Vista than it is currently with XP. Add to this the fact that buying a new system means it comes automatically with Vista, and may well be cheaper in real terms than the system it replaces, and you will realise that very few businesses will do anything other than moving to Vista when they replace the PC.
So the real question should be how many of the business systems deployed since Vista hit the market are still running XP. Anybody any idea?
If M$ really wanted to see what the market had to say.
They would allow the vendors to offer both Vista and XP on every machine. If Vista is so wonderful all the users would ask for it surely? If not then they would no be forcing it on everyone and would have a true market response to their new product. As it is when you are only allowed one choice that does not indicate customer satisfaction.
@ Tom Turck
Please tell me about the Vista "security" features? I just want to know what you mean by this.
OS X "Snow Leopard" Server goes right for the mid-sized enterprise market.
I predict a further rise in Apple on the enterprise desktop.
Shouldn't have bought Vista
A non-technical friend on a tight budget asked me if he should get a Vista laptop. I said no, get one with XP installed. He instead bought one with Vista installed and asked me to show him how to do X, Y, Z because "it doesn't work the same as XP". Yeah, I know, that's one reason why I recommended XP.
Then he asked how he can make it go faster because it seems quite slow. I told him to upgrade to XP. Yes, I said "upgrade". If you see an improvement in performance or ease of use then it's definately an upgrade. And if you buy a cheap laptop you definately need to run it with XP.
Or if you *have* to use Vista then disable SuperFetch. General use becomes snapier IMO.
Why would I though?
I work for the NHS, and am directly responsible for a small network of approx 200 desktop systems and 6 servers (2 sql, 2 citrix, 2 file), in a independantly funded (not tax payers money) department.
We have machines ranging from brand new to 3 years old, all running XP Pro SP2. Everything runs sweet as a nut, the machines have a light, compact custom build, it looks good, it's familar, responsive and pretty secure.
I currently see no reason at all to move over to Vista. If I were to migrate I'd reimage every machine identically (it makes support a breeze), and to be frank some of our older machines wouldn't cut it, and some of our new machines would probably be a little sluggish.
Vista's party-piece for want of a better phrase is media, and that's simply not a part of office life.
Expensive license + time to reimage + cost of new hardware + sluggish performance = FAIL
Paris, because she understands the true joy of a responsive OS.
The “new Coke” ?
What like, you pay a shed load of money it, for a while it makes everything look great, but everyone else thinks you're being a wanker and the come down is a total bitch ?
Most businesses will prefer to support a single platform at a time. Rolling out a new OS to thousands of machines is time-consuming but at least every machine is pretty standard (at least to begin with), and easier to support.
MS have never seemed to grasp that businesses will not buy individual new machines with a new OS, and just plonk that on someone's desk. Nor do they seem to realise that most businesses just want a stable OS, and for it to remain stable and supported for many years (Unix?).
Why would you buy faster hardware to run a new OS that ran your new version of Office at the same speed as your old stuff?
Vespa is the "New Coke" eh?
Actually - you've got a point there; after recently installing "Whole Bottle of Coke" I am left feeling incredibly lathargic, heavy, uncomfortably swollen and quite reluctant to do anything productive at all.
It leaves you with that bloated feeling; not particularly nasty per se but hardly an efficient way to wet the palet... What other analogous offerings do we have? It's heavily overpriced for what the customer actually wants (effective thirst quenching can be obtained from free council juice but you need to BUY THIS!!! because it tastes good-er); there are numerous completely unnecessary add-ins that take up extra room in your stomach; it's so full of gas a completely new form of virus could live off it indefinately; it expands exponentially upon installation such that there is no space left for anything of substance; it's been hypersweetened to the point where it makes your eyelids curl (and what better way is there to describe 'aero' but as useless eyecandy); and of course it is available in three distinctly unappealing flavours (decaffeinated, de-sugared and good old de-cocaine'd). It is, in effect, completely without substance and totally unnecessary, hardly the choice of a new generation. Yup - Nail -> Head.
I'm not rushing
I would imagine that, like myself, quite a few IT professionals first got their hands on Vista not because they consciously bought a copy, but because a laptop or desktop PC came with the damn OS pre-loaded - and then the IT department had to 'upgrade' a PC in order to support their Vista Users.
Sadly, I upgraded my 2 year-old Acer laptop in response to the trickle of Vista-based laptops arriving in our organisation - and it's been grief ever since. First of all the RAM had to go up from 768MB to 1.5GB to get any decent performance (Processor is a 1.5GHz Celeron M), then I had to debug why remote desktop kept stopping working for a few Managers. 50% of the time my display won' t wake up again after screen-saving and then I have to push the power button to go in, then out, of suspend to carry on working.
Heaven help me if Vista downloads an update and wants a reboot because the cycle of: 'out-of-hibernate' -> reboot -> install updates -> maybe reboot again can take the best part of 20 minutes.
I am often left wondering why a simple task, such as checking or changing network configuration, takes twice as many keypresses under Vista (with default configuration) as with XP. My default printer keeps randomly changing and if I lose my wifi connection it can sometimes take a reboot to get it back..I could go on but you get the picture.
I look after around 200 PCs and it'll be a cold day in hell before I take any direct action to upgrade any of them to Vista - and before you wonder what happens when I have 'no choice' because Vista's the only pre-loaded option well - I am looking at a new core app for our business needs (veterinary clinics) that is wholly java-based and will run on a Linux desktop - even on our ageing PII's currently running good-ol' NT4.
--Paris because she probably knows what it's like to have something unwanted thrust upon her.
Nearly half of businesses have Vista deployment plans....
"It’s not a huge surprise that just over half the enterprises we surveyed don’t yet have Windows Vista deployment plans...."
So nearly half do?
Seriously guys... wake up and smell the roses. Vista is being deployed. My last place deployed it after trialing it on a few sales PC's and the success resulted in every new PC using it. Some marketing droids are rabbiting about doing a new website and mentioned Vista at the "15-20% mark"... that's a damn sight better than Mac OS X or Linux - and they've had a bit longer to get the sales going. (Jesus - Linux is free and Vista is still kicking it's ass!)
At my current place they don't use a new OS until SP1, and as I've only been here 4 months I haven't got around to it.
Yet we've been buying Vista licences for the last year or so.
Guess what.... we're using XP on them.
But guess what else.... we're going to put them onto Vista in the next month or so as we've test it and it works pretty well. Better security model that XP, easier to administer and will please the sales team as it looks all shiny. (e.g. it was this or a mac! :-)
Businesses haven't got time to dick about with a new OS. They just want it to work. It's normally a good 18 months to 2 years before companies even LOOK at upgrading their platform.
Once again the linux lovers (read microsoft haters) moan and bitch about the latest product from the worlds most popular desktop OS vendor AGAIN - whilst praising the previous version AGAIN. Same bitching, same timescale, just the latest release.
And again, out of all of these comments from "IT Professionals", nobody has actually stated any reasons as to why it's oh so crap. Just the usual "i keep telling my mates how shite it is", "i downgraded 40,000,000 machines can it's so poor" and the ever original "apple/linux is better".
Guys - get a fucking life. It's an OS. It works. There are lots of drivers. Hardware for it is so cheap the homeless can get it and other than some wanky in-house VB app done on the cheap - what doesn't run on it? What the fuck is the problem?!
BTW Daniel: XP Pro is more expensive than Vista Bus. Quite a bit if you include inflation as well.
Oh - nice and original "V.I.S.T.A" there. Love it - Although I suspect your one of the many "professionals" unable to grasp the concept of UAC... Twat
Whats with the Linux bashing?
I seriously don't get the Linux bashing going on here the whole I time. I dual boot Ubuntu 8.04 with XP SP3- and have configured around 30 computers in a similar fashion. Most people use XP- some use Ubuntu- some of those who haven't got a vague foggy notion what they're looking at actually prefer Ubuntu. So what? I still shelled out for XP licences- and indeed have a small stock of them in reserve. I don't hate Microsoft, I don't love Linux. I love hardware that just works, is easy to install and maintain, and does not have to be needlessly upgraded just to suit someone else's deployment cycle. I'm a big fan of making life as easy as possible- but I'm also a big fan of secure computing........
Some things do bug me- like having to configure multiple partitions in FAT32 to support some of the hardware- but so what. Thats life.
Ps- yes, I'm also the sort of guy who uses bootcamp on Powerbooks to dual boot with XP. So what.......
The Microsoft business model is "old and busted"
It was never a very sophisticated model anyway. Establish a monopoly position and then use it to force customers to swallow whatever you shoved down their throats. But, aha! (and ha ha ha!) Vista is in the anomalous position of competing with its predecessor XP, and guess what? Customers much prefer XP to Vista. Moreover over there in the bushes, Linux and Mac OS are making rather attractive cooing noises and luring the adventurous in that direction. (For some values of "attractive". Does the Mac OS wear leopard-skin bikini underwear? Does Linux favor black leather bustiers?)
As far as I can tell, Microsoft is so used to ignoring what the customers want and *truly* need that finally they've produced a system so contrary to those wants and needs that the market is rejecting it.
Three things strike me about Vista: first, it's another example of pointless change in details. The way you do something in one version of Windows has often been different from the previous version, even though the previous version worked just fine. Vista merely carries on this tradition, but in spades. The administrators are justifiably annoyed.
Second, in spite of the amazing increase in processing power, PC's have slowed down; the increase in hardware speed has been stolen and handed over to the functions the users neither want nor need, for example end-to-end encryption of HD signals. See
for some of the gory details.
Third, Vista, much more frequently than previous versions of Windows starting with Win95, gives rise to the cry "hey, whose computer is this anyway? Mine or Microsoft's?" When the OS starts to actively interfere with the use of your machine, as Vista evidently does, it demonstrates some kind of fundamental ethical blindspot on the part of the OS developer.
In a way, Vista is an interesting example of evolution in action. If you (hypothetically) build The Perfect OS, then any change whatsoever is a step down. I suspect that XP is reasonably close to The Perfect OS, at least as far as PC users are concerned, so Vista can only be a backward step.
The situation has its amusing elements. As others have pointed out, Microsoft's response to the Vista fuckup is spin, spin, and more spin, but we've got so used to lies, distortions, smokescreens, fairy tales, and myths that spin doesn't do much anymore except transfer dollars from Microsoft's pockets into the pockets of the spinmeisters.
The reason why they don't state their reasons is for the same reason we don't question gravity when things fall. There's plenty of proof of performance dips and the long goodbye, but we've accepted them as facts and see no reason to troop them out again since we already know about them.
re: danial and general vista fud..
As far as every new OS needing more stuff. Not true with Linux. I support hardware that is from 4 years old to purchased last week. My low end systems have 512 megs of RAM.
All of them support any version of Linux I toss at them. Be it Ubuntu Dapper Drake (2 years old) to Ubuntu Hardy Heron (2 months old). KDE3 .5 or KDE 4. No problem. I expect that even my old systems will have no problem with the next version (or two) of Ubuntu.
For the most part, Linux has their act together. There has not been a need of getting hardware any better than an "average" system that was sold in 2004.
Microsoft overshot the mark. We are only now getting to the point were low end systems run Vista well. And that is because we now define low end as a system with 2 gigs of ram!
@Steve, @Chad H
Steve, your post was superb and as far as I'm concerned spot on. The majority of posts here are bashing something that 99% of the users don't give a fuck about. They just want it to work, if anything they want the newer shinier version because that's simply how our society works.
The obvious and clear reason that very few non-enthusiasts use Linux et al, is because it's shit. Vista has things in different places from XP, which is just dumb, but it's still a damn sight easier to grasp than Linux. Most businesses couldn't give a toss if Linux will run on hardware they cobble together out of toys, it needs to be easy for the USERS to USE.
Don't blame Microsoft for trying to make more money, they are simply doing the same as everyone else and were lucky to have the right product at the right time.
Oh and Chad, you can't claim that the understanding of a universal force that has been around since the dawn of fucking time, is anywhere near comparable as an argument to this situation. Plus, you don't understand gravity properly anyway. Things don't fall down, the Earth rushes up to meet them. ;)
The Linux Users...
I see there were some comments about linux users bashing Vista and hailing XP as the best thing since sliced bread. As a Linux user and programmer I can refute that, I've never had the inclination to use either XP or Vista and won't bother commenting on the tech.
No I'll just point out that Vista is not being bought by people who receive fresh new blank machines. It's being forced on people in a quite immoral and market distorting way. Thus windows users are not in control of their own computers and I would always recommend that such users regain control with the use of linux, regardless of how great windows actually is.
Who are you going to believe...
.... Microsoft (who promote and sell the product) or Forrester (one of the most experienced and respected IT business research outfits)?
BTW, I thought the Terminal 5 analogy was nifty - although, presumably, T5 will eventually work as intended.
@Dave Bennet, who writes: "The obvious and clear reason that very few non-enthusiasts use Linux et al, is because it's shit."
Thank you for that well-reasoned and insightful analysis. It saved me reading the rest because unthinking knee-jerk vituperation like that invalidates anything else you might have to say (and I'd feel the same if you wrote that you didn't like Windows "because it's shit"). Idiot.
Paris because even she probably thinks for a moment before shooting her mouth off.
It is all Intel's fault anyway
They didn't make a "bigger faster cheaper" processor that was only Vista compatible. Yup, no big processor upgrade, so no compelling reason to upgrade the software.
In fact, there are smaller machines (slower) that are getting market share (EEE PC is but one I suspect). All the "Vista ready" (or whatever hype exists) requires lots of $$$ and (more importantly) more POWER from the wall socket/battery.
NOT a good trend!
M$ forgot the first rule of computing - if it ain't broke, don't fix it !!
No amount of spin will cover up their fuckup in that direction !! 'nouf said !!
The obvious reason why very few non-enthusiasts use linux is that Microsoft has abused their monopoly powers since the late 80s. Try to find a vendor who will sell you a dual boot system? You cant find one.
Until recently you could not get a Dell or HP with linux preinstalled. And even now you have to know what you are looking for to find the option.
If a PC arrived with a Vista CD an Ubuntu CD and a checkofflist.
Vista - Install, install drivers, reboot, sytem update, reboot, install antivirus, install anti-spyware, install office software.
Ubuntu -install, update wireless/video drivers, system update and reboot.
On that playing field, Linux would hold more than 2% of the desktop market.
Everyone knows someone who knows enough about windows to get going with it. If the same was true for Linux. Microsoft would be in trouble.
The only problem business would really have, is if their applications would run in a linux environment. Believe me, I would rather train an XP user with Office 2003 experience to use Ubuntu with Openoffice before I would want to train them on using Vista with Office 2007. Vista with Office is just to different from what they are used to.
I find it crazy that Microsoft's OSes tend to get slower and slower, do things less efficiently.
At least Apple are actually realising that they need to optimise their OS and cut the bloat (it does run pretty nicely anyway compared to Vista). They're even working on making multicore appear fairly transparent to the programmer.
Microsoft made too many dramatic changes, they should have improved things under the hood dramatically but present a fairly familiar face to the end user. Maybe giving them the option to switch on new power features. Instead they added way too much clutter and redesigned things for the sake of it.
£13,000 of workstations all downgraded
My company has recently bought a load of Dell workstations to the tune of £13,000, all have been 'downgraded' to XP.
My peni*..er...OS is bigger than yours
This whole anti-vista business has gotten quite tiresome by now. I wondered if the Applites and Linites might have tired of it by now, but apparently not.
I do not agree with MS's numbers. They are going on licenses, and still consider those who've downgraded to XP to be Vista customers. They also don't include the linux geeks who would never use Windows even if it were a stable, reliable and fully secure system. Naturally, all of this is absolute rubbish.
I personally do not have any real issues with Vista. My only real bitch about it is; what's with all the DRM? Apparently the almighty and powerful MS caved in to pressures from the RIAA and MPAA, and are now snuggly in bed together taking turns on eachothers butt holes.
As for those who are waiting for everyone to switch over to linux; if you're so eagre and truly wish it upon everyone, why not put your money where you mouth is so every boy, girl, mom, pop, grandma and grandpa (in other words everyone) can get the new OS to recognize and function with their scanners, printers, card readers, digital cameras, video cards, video capture cards, HD video capture cards and TV tuners, and so on? I mean not everyone understands geek speek, not everyone can understand all the cryptic linux user support groups and other types of "holier than thou" computer users around the world.
Really folks...I mean...REALLY!
Hi fanbuoys! Stop spinning!
"Yes it requres better hardware but so does every new operating system."
Wrong. It's never been true except for MS OSes. New OSes *support* better hardware, they don't *require* it. (well, in a reasonable time frame, that is. I don't claim that my brand new shiny Linuxes and BSDs will support 20 -yo hardware, but they DO run on 10-yo hardware like a charm.)
"Yes its not exactly the same as xp and there are some new things you must learn, but again, this is true of any new os."
True and false, in this order. It is not exactly the same, it's the same stuff reorganized, so you're right. But "any new OS" requires you to re-learn how to do things? Really? This is not even "only true for MS", it's only true for Vista! (well, since 3.1 anyway)
"on vista level hardware vista is about the same if not slightly faster than xp performance wise, even though it contains alot more stuff." False, false and false. From my experience, even on a 64-bit processor and with a metric ton of RAM, XP is faster when the load of the system increases (though you're right, the difference tends to decrease with the amount of RAM). Which is kinda ridiculous, ain't it? Given that Vista 64 is supposed to be able to make use of the 64-bit CPUs, and not XP...
As for the "alot more stuff" part, I guess this is a lot more stirfoam and/or cotton clogging the datatubes inside the damn machine, because I don't really see what else you could be talking about... oh, you're not refering to this small added feature, the one that every other OS on earth already had, back from the sixties? The one MS dubbed UAC? Or are you?
"Vista has things in different places from XP, which is just dumb, but it's still a damn sight easier to grasp than Linux."
Easier to grasp? Where the heck did you read that? Because obviously, you didn't experience it yourself. Unless you jumped on Gentoo (or even Slackware) right away without reading any documentation. For the n00bs (by that I mean people with a point-and-click compulsion and an aversion for the RTFM approach), there is Ubuntu and the like (Mandriva is quite easy to use for unexperienced users, too). These distros are easier to use and more intuitive than Vista. Not only for me, but also for the XP-hugging non-IT people I know who happened to try. (my parents, my neighbour, and two lusers here at work spring to mind)
All I can say is...
...that in our shop we tried hard to go Vista, MS even came in to assist the migration, but our apps are so old and have so many silly dependencies that MS sort of gave up and advised that we should go from W2K to XP until all our apps are up to spec, then maybe they will come back have another go, that was 12 months ago.
Hardly surprising when many businesses are watching costs even more so than ever.
The analysis of the first half of 2008 probably covered a period of considerable belt-tightening.