OSNews

Whilst that may be true in a marketing sense, the industry could make a few billion dollars more just by making their products easier to use. People are unaware of the functionality they already have. Most of the customers I serve use their dul-core machines as nothing more than a glorified Internet box.

Ease of use and education is the future path to profit. - not features. We already can do a decent amount with computers, and whilst that will still grow, having these features become increasingly accessible to people who don't use them will then open extra markets and increase sales around those activites.

Here's one example that stands out to me:
The iPhone drove 59% mobile web traffic to google by itself. By just increasing the number of people who use the Internet on the mobile, the iPhone has thus created new advertising possibilities for companies and new ways to communicate their product to users.

For businesses, that's no small, obvious thing at all - that's bloody brilliant! I think if everybody actually used the video editing and dvd burning capabilities of thier computers every week, then they'd be no need for the HD war and that crap, or the HD war would be totally justified as millions of users calmoured to play with the new formats creatively.

We are held back by our lack of knowing what to do with what we've made.

Having used Windows 2000, XP (grudingly) and Slackware as my desktop OSs for the last few 3 (or so) years, I thought it was time for a change - an upgrade of OS on my laptop.

While the bundled Vista was far from exciting (and thus lasted barely a day on the notebook) I quickly fell in love with Arch + KDE + compiz fusion.
Granted neither Arch nor compiz is groundbreaking, but for the first time in years I've found myself excited in the opperating system + frontend again (to the point where I'm making up any old excuse to boot it up and play)

The crux of the point was this:
I do believe Windows has reached a plateau of sorts. It's now too familiar to people to change dramatically between one revision and the next.
Perhaps the next Windows "excitment" leap will come with the introduction of new input interfaces (multi-touch screens and the lark)?

Same here. It sounds like a cliche but the abysmal performance of Vista actually pushed me to use Linux full time. Linux is surprisingly smooth on a new computer, even compared to old OSes like XP.

Not to mention that Linux compared to Windows is actually fun, but hey, tastes differ.

Edited 2008-03-18 13:09 UTC

Same here. It sounds like a cliche but the abysmal performance of Vista actually pushed me to use Linux full time. Linux is surprisingly smooth on a new computer, even compared to old OSes like XP.

Not to mention that Linux compared to Windows is actually fun, but hey, tastes differ. "

That pushed me over to Linux full time as well.Haven't looked back and no regrets.

I know the feeling and I do the same thing.Using Arch on my workstation,it's snappy,boots and shuts down like lightning on pretty modest hardware.

I'm very excited about upgrading to the next release of my prefered primary OS. Back in the day, there was some excitement moving from win2k to winXP and if I had access too a legal license for Vista uber edition I would have had some excitement in looking it over. It is very pretty on the machine's I've been able to play with it on.

I can't say "upgrading" in the last case as the days of Windows being my primary OS are falling more distantly behind me daily. This is also not meant to start another religious debate over OS so you'll notice I only mention selections from the Windows family by name.

evolution vs revolution i say

I think the biggest problem with Vista, at least from my brief exposure to it, is that there's been too much change-for-the-sake-of-change from XP.

I've had to do support for a few PCs running Vista (only 4 or 5 so far, luckily) - and each time, I spent a good portion of that time hunting for the arbitrary new location of various pieces of functionality.

E.g., while doing some work on a Vista laptop last week, I had to hit up Google just find where in the hell Vista keeps file association settings or the options to setup a new "my network place." And I never did figure out what happened to the "Open With" right-click menu in Vista.

I started using computers with Win3.1 and with every subsequent new version, there were changes that I disliked initially but grudgingly came to see the benefit over time (the "desktop" model vs. the old "program manager," the "explorer bar," the XP start menu, etc). But with Vista, most of the differences between it and XP are in XP's favour IMO, not Vista's.

Microsoft (and I shall add Apple too), care about their customers for as long as there isn't something new and shiny to get drawn away to.

I work for a large and very successful software company and we have used Vista almost exclusively from day 1 without any major issues. I personally don't see how people experience so many problems

I basically agree with you. I've never really seen any problems in Vista from my family's use - and they're definitely not technical.

I don't use Vista because:

a. I don't feel comfortable with the firewall (this is an education thing, which I don't have time for yet)

b. I know the issues with XP and wonder about Vista

c. it does seem slow to my impatient self

d. its too expensive


To the end users I've seen (and this is beyond my family) they don't even think about a, don't really know about b (they just install updates, without thinking), they don't notice c or d because it came with a shiny new Dell duel core CPU with 4GB memory.



Sometimes I wonder if as "techs" we over analyse things and loose sight of things just because we know too much.

.. So I guess you work at Microsoft?

Yes, you may have no problems, but you can't justify the investment no matter how hard you try.

You'll be surprised how many people are driving bad cars on the road thinking they are fine. If you think Vista is worth the money over XP then fine but in my view it's just not, forced upgrade path aside.

If you haven't had many problems, consider yourselves lucky. The vast majority of IT centers do not want to take the chance of breaking current and legacy apps in order to upgrade simply because MS tells us to do so.

Have experienced no app breakage with x64 Vista.

If you are dealing with centres that are running pre NT apps then I suppose there could be issues but also Vista does allow for compatability options with regards to running apps.

In a Graphics/Media environment I have yet to come accross application problems.

As for right click on a file and open with option, it's there. Can't remember if it's hidden on a default install but it isn't rocket science to get it configured.

Vista is different but so are all other alternatives to Windows XP and unfortunately, Vista is the only one that runs apps written for Windows XP or I would advocate alternatives to clients where they have XP only apps. Parallels on OS-X is a pain especially with running OS-X in a Windows Network (flaky network folder sharing between OS-X and Windows XP where the folders are hosted on Windows boxes) and WINE doesn't cut it on Linux although Linux networks nicer with Windows boxes.

The reaction to Vista is nothing more than MS bashing that people do when ever they release something different. It happens all the time and in time when people get over themselves they will wonder what the fuss was all about just like they have with Windows XP. Sure, a service pack or 2 will help the process as well but hands up those who loved OS-X on it's first release?

I have to agree with your upgrade statements. I have invested time and money in my tools. As with any serious user, my tools lock me to my platform.

I have to question those who says "My upgrade from XP to Vista failed so I switched to Distro xxx/ OS X/ or whatever." #1, it is implied that this is your primary work box. Otherwise, why the heartache? Unless you're a developer using cross-platform tools (Eclipse, Qt, text editors...) it would be almost impossible for a serious user to change primary platforms at the drop of a hat without serious retooling. I spent years switching from Mac OS to Windows. At best I could get a side box and split duties, but why complicate my workflow?

Only a casual net/ mail/ messaging/ media user can easily switch platforms. They can also ditch the PC for a phone.

One thing I wish Windows would finally do is create a 1-stop control panel similar to FireFox, Word 2007, or KDE's System Settings. Category list on the left, settings on the right. I've given the new control panel an open-minded chance and hate it. I can't believe 1 dept created Office 2007's unified menus and another dept created this.

The fact is that Vista is/was made primarily for the home user. There isn't anything that beneficial inside to make IT managers start frothing at the mouths, and cutting checks for (massive) hardware upgrades.

To reply to your post, I've been testing Vista Business on a box at work since Oct. of last year, and like you, it more or less works. Still has problems with McAfee 8.5 (mostly ePO), issues with Timbuktu, but by and large it fumbles it's way through the plethora of common apps we use at work (Lotus 7, SAP, Office (which had better run swimmingly). There's nothing that makes me happy I'm using it, however. Apart from those apps, I really don't push it with much more. Solidworks will not run, and they are developing a whole separate Vista version for such, probably because of UAC. I can't see our organization taking it on for at least the next 3 years...minimum. As long as we can deal with XP Volume licensing, and get security upgrades on the regular, we'll be sticking with XP.

I'll agree, there is one thing that Vista has fixed....taking the next drive letter for USB drives. XP is really a mess in that regard. MS should be publicly humiliated for the USB mess, and taking this long to actually get it right. They pushed for the standard 10+ years ago, and are just now, getting it straightened out. But I digress....

The simple fact is, as the article stated, WinXP is tried and true. It's (relatively) stable. It brings very little new to the table in the business IT world. A properly configured Active Directory Policy structure, along with a few 3rd party apps, and you have very few reasons to begin planning a mass migration to an OS that is going to cause your helpdesk months of pain and suffering.

I think it is not a dilemma. Look at the Past.

1995: I hated W95, I did avoid it. I ended using and liking it.

1998: I hated W98, I did avoid it. I ended using and liking it.

2000: I hated W2k, I did avoid it. I ended using and liking it.

XP/Vista: I personally still canÂ't get friendly with it. Maybe in 6-24 months. Office: all desktops in my group are equipped with XP for 3-4 years now.

Anecdotal evidence! Yay!

On the other hand, I don't agree with any of those things you've said. Does that mean I'm right?

I work in a shop that is a microsoft certified partner (so we get all our ms products dirt cheap) We are already planning on the upgrade to .net 3.5 (as soon as we get server 2k8 up and running in production), the only reason we use vs 2k5 is because BizTalk doesn't support 2k8 yet.

We have also all been on Vista Business for almost a year now. There were some serious stuff to get passed when it comes to development processes, but now, everything is more or less worked out. I asked one of our IT guys how he likes Vista, from an admin perspective. He said he likes it alot, but that is probably only the case because we are all on pretty nice machines (2 ghz core 2 duo, SATA hds, 4 gigs of ram, etc)

Now, we not only have above average hardware, but in a general way we are definitely early adopters. That being said, when the rest of the world catches up, they wont find the nightmare they think they will.

I tend to agree, but remember at this point XP is still a supported product for which Microsoft will be obliged to release security updates to fix any such problem.

Ultimately if people are not given a viable alternative they *will* switch to Vista. Microsoft has *always* released crappy products and fixed them "eventually" or never, as the market demands. Look at AD... a terrible directory server, by all accounts, until Windows 2003 (now it's merely sucky). They don't need good products to make the sale, they just need to not allow a competitor to take business away from them.

Microsoft is Mr. We'll-Fix-It-In-The-Next-Version-Trust-Us. Until someone can offer an alternative *upgrade path* (not just a replacement!) XP will be king, then Vista will be king.

Sad but true.

Actually, it's the other way around. Companies started "standardising" on MS Office, and then people started pirating it to take home as that is what they were used to.

Computers were big in businesses long before they were ever popular in the home.

Then Apple had the bright idea of getting their software into the schools, so that kids would become experienced with it before they got to the business world. And then MS followed suit, and gave educational institutions huge discounts on MS Office.

So now you have MS Office in the schools and in the work force. What was a person to do, but use it at home? And since the universities were all using MS Office, that's the format papers had to be turned in as.

Home users have very little impact on work/school users. And it's the work/school sites that make up the largest portion of MS sales for Office.

Nailed it.

My Niece has her school laptop configured with Vista, Office 2007 and Macafee. It runs like a dog, she has to use Outlook 2007 for email and all her homework assignments are dictated to be done in Office 2007.

Total overkill and lockin from an education standpoint. I mean for god sake, Outlook 2007 for email for a 9 year old?

The laptop runs like a dog compared to their parents home system I configured which runs Vista x64 business, Windows Mail and Open Office. For AV I went with Avast Anti Virus which has a small footprint.

My neice asks if there is anything I can do to speed her system up but I have to respect the schools IT policy and wash my hands of her system.

Vista and many users poor exierence of it come down to poor choices of which version to run, hardware, and configuration. I've run it for over a year now, supported it and installed it for others and I find that if approached with a thoroughness of preparation and setup, it runs as well as XP. SP1 does help Vista considerably but so does running the x64 version. Most OEM's install the x86 version of Vista which is a dog and MS's biggest mistake on Vista's release.

A year ago I'd probably try in vain to troll you off the park for that, but I can't help but agree now.

In a business sense, I just can't justify it. I've given it to two members of staff here, and also tried to use it for myself in an sysadmin role. It's failed in both roles, offering nothing new except new issues.

I really can't see this IT department rolling Vista out, ever.

Here, here! Why keep trying to come up with something new and have to deal with all the "new" problems and incompatibilities when they could just fix the problems with their existing OS and software? If I wanted to be snide, I would say that MS OS's are so badly designed that they can't be fixed. But I really think it is because too many good technical decisions get over ruled for business or other non-technical reasons. I'll leave it to the rest of you to surmise as to what those other reasons are. (hint: Embrace, Extend, Extinguish)

I thought for Win2k you don't need any serial number?
I've installed it a few times and never needed any.
Was I lucky?

I guess that was a special CD. All W2k CDs that I had so far asked for the serial number during the installation.

Win2k is an excellent Os indeed.The best from Redmond.

I think if Microsoft wants to redeem themselves with Windows 7 they should use the philosophy of Win2k as their guiding light.Fast,minimal,rock-stable and unobtrusive to the user.

I stayed on W2K for years after XP came out. It was a very solid and reliable OS. But eventually, I started running into problems finding drivers for some newer hardware that I acquired. I finally made the leap to XP some time after SP2 was released (I waited to hear others' experiences with XP SP2 and decided the risk was acceptable). I would say that overall XP SP2 is acceptably stable and functional, and it is my main work OS now. I don't see moving to Vista any earlier than SP2 if then. I do have a trial copy of W2K8 server that I will try out, though. We will see...

I whole-heartedly agree.

Windows 2000 is a great OS and if it wasn't for one driver that won't run on it I'd use it without question! (I believe the driver is forced to require XP regardless of whether it needs it)

There's very little that XP offers over 2000, is there? Especially in a business context!

Win2003 server is also cool if you can get the drivers right. XP drivers worked fine here in 2 hardware setups.

I now have XP at work. Having the latest iTunes is nice but other than that I miss W2K (especially the filesystem search).

Deja vue (sp?) all over again ;-)! I have seen/heard the exact same discussion regarding the upgrade from NT3.51 to W2K, and again from W2K to XP. I sell and support computers to the US Government (and some others as well). These organization will in most cases hold off for quite a while (years) before upgrading, first because acceptable capability and reliability aren't there until SP2 or so, and because any new platform must pass security audits to ensure that the new platforms are not "leaky". Because of this, MS has no choice but to continue supporting the earlier platform for quite some time after each successor is released. Note that all Tier 1 PC manufacturers offer their systems either with the latest MS OS (Vista currently) or with the previous OS (XP) loaded. All USG RFQs that I see now specify XP as the required OS, not Vista.

That's the point of the article isn't it? You can skip Vista altogether until the next version.

I do have that Vista disk the came with my computer somewhere... Just not on the hard disk.

It depends on when you are buying your next computer and when the next version of Windows comes out. Shockingly, they may not actual release the next version of Windows as soon as the are predicting.

what does this mean? Installing Solaris Sparc 6 on new Hardware? Together with old applications written for it?

Or is this a nice sentence spoken out by a Sun PR-Guy? Sounds more like that to me.