You make some great points, but your anaology to buying a new car every few years is flawed logic.

XP was delivered with fundamental problems - such as bugs and security. Why should Micorosoft be paid millions of dollars (via upgrades to Vista) and likely require me to upgrade my hardware as a solution to a faulty product?

If my car is delivered with door locks that don't work (a fundamental security problem), the manufacturer would fix them for free - it wouldn't require me to buy a newer more expensive car to get working door locks.

Jeff,

The moment someone says, "you're logic is flawed" a more egregious error is sure to follow. Your analogy makes an inappropriate comparison: the car manufacturer will indeed fix the locks that should have worked in the first place and Microsoft did this - SP1, SP2, and SP3. But they will not give you a car alarm, a keyfob, locking lug nuts, and other security features you did not pay for (unless they're feeling charitable). For that, you have to get the new car in which they're included or go aftermarket.

Being required to spend hundreds (if not thousands) to upgrade a computer just to run the operating system is a ridiculous notion. The main thing the OS is supposed to be used for is resource management. It shouldn't take gigabytes of memory to accomplish this task. As technology improves it should take less memory and not more. Look at CPUs, they get smaller and they do more. Why would I want to pay more for something that gives me more problems and doesn't allow me to run the software I want because of driver issues and also because Vista is too busy hogging all the system resources so that I can't even do what I have the computer for anyways? Following the principle of evolution Microsoft should be so good at making Windows that each release should take less memory, not more just like what the CPU manufacturers are accomplishing. I think we have this problem on our hands because Microsoft doesn't have any decent competition to drive them to make a lightweight yet powerful operating system

I think it's important to take views like the article's author, with a grain of salt. You have to remember that this piece was not written in an insulated bubble but rather by an employee of a publication that gets a substantial amount of advertising revenue from Microsoft and it's subsidiaries.

Don't think for one minute that you'll see many objective pieces in this publication regarding Vista.

How about this "objective" piece on spyware:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/01/31/Spyware-forum-says-computer-users-cause-major-problems_1.html

Making statements that this one quoted in the article, "Computer users run outdated antivirus software, operating systems, and browsers because they're scared of change" seeks only to endorse Vista. It's not impartial at all but rather is written with a slant that we should ditch XP and going to Microsoft and begging them to kill XP and leave Vista the only one left.

Vista isn't bad for folks who like driving their cars on two flat tires. That, my friends, is what the Vista experience feels like. It's as if your front two tires are flat and the steering is sluggish and the handling is bad.

Also in line with this analogy is the mere fact that this OS is not-"green" but is more of a "gas-guzzler" as it will make your quad core cpu and 4 gb's of ram seem like a celeron 366 with 128 mb of ram really quick.

Vista would not let me play copies of my favorite dvd's while I was traveling. I am not taking the originals on the flight nor did I want to "rip" them and leave the digital image on my HD.

Nope..Vista is like the old bull at the back of the barn that never got sent to the slaughterhouse. It needs to be taken out behind the barn and put down quietly and with dignity.

And this nonsense from MS about handcuffing computer buyers into have this beast installed on all new hardware instead of giving the customer the choice, is also crazy.

It's companies like Microsoft and Apple that have used terms like "innovation" to describe their users' experiences are at the same time squashing any hope for innovation and instead replacing it with a dictatorial system of software, content delivery.

Our Vista rollout has been smooth. (514 desktops/laptops) I have been doing Windows rollouts since Windows 3.0 and this has been the most troublefree rollout yet. We did a lot of pretesting with the prerelease candidates. We have a couple older printers and scanners that don't play with Vista but that is about it. Highly recommended if you buy it with a computer that is designed for it. Do not apply as an upgrade to older systems.

I only use Vista on my home machine that I use for work as well as a Media center. I have had very few issues although I can sympathise with the sys admins that have to do a wide deployment through an org.

I really am bemused by the "sky is falling" comments regarding Vista. Every version of windows ever released (even going from DOS to 3.1) has required extra resources and made existing machines run slow and there have always been backwards compatibility issues with every version. Why else have people had dual booting machines for the last 10 years (or more). Even Apple offers bootcamp to acknowlege not all software a user requires runs on a single OS sometimes. Now virtual machines allow running non-compatible software on a different OS (why is parallels so poular on the iMac?)

Could a better job have been done on device drivers for Vista? You bet. Is it slower and more bloated than previous windows versions. Yep, but so have all other versions of windows when released. Is Vista expensive when bought off the shelf? Yep so get it as OEM with your next new machine for half the price. When XP is no longer supported will your machine cease to function or will you be forced to upgrade? Simply no. My son has used an old laptop with Win 98 on up until recently.

Do what most people do and get it when you finally have to upgrade and for those devices or software that are not compatible use a free version of Virtual PC. I got Vista when I upgraded my 5 year old machine to a new Quad core, 4Gb RAM, 1TB HD and the apps all seem to open virtually instantaneously. To be fair I should mention that I wiped my old machine (P4 3GHz)and reinstalled XP for my son to use the the start-up times for both machines from Boot to login are virtually identical although after login the XP is noticeably slower in every way.

Is vista perfect? No way. Has it crashed on me? Never (i.e no BSoD or lock up/non responsive), although I.E. and explorer seem to crash more than XP but recovery is really nice with no system instability that I am aware of.

Oh and BTW (for non-business users), the media centre features are great linking seamlessly from the machine in my study to the XBOX in the lounge. I got a dual tuner card for use with Vista which saved me a few hundred I was going to spend on a DVD recorder with hard drive. Playing, burning and ripping DVD's all works well.

People need to ask themselves: "Is it reasonable to expect that the next version of something will be 100% backwards compatible?". In my opinion it is not. Will every person want every new feature in a product? No, and this applies to cars, refrigerators, dishwashers, cameras, etc. That's why they hang on to the 4 megapixel camera even though 7 megapixels are now very affordable with 10 x optical zoom. How many people really need the 10xzoom feature? Use the old one until it breaks or until the new one has features you want.

I do agree with some of the comments that the original argument for Vista put forward and the analogies to cars (and even others offered by commenters e.g. coke, etc. or the camera one I used) could have been put better that may have eliminated some of the negative feedback.

Just to add to my previous comment:

Yes I do find UAC annoying and have turned it off although this was mainly necessary for older software to install properly. I understand what microsoft is trying to do here but this is not the solution.

Yes, I use XP via Virtual PC myself for the few apps that don't run under Vista. It's much better than dual booting. You can share drive resources between the virtual PC and the physical one so they have access to the same files at the same time.

The only apps I currently have to use the virtual PC for is to support a HP multi-function printer (this is mainly due to the HP printer software adding 2 minutes to startup and always needing the printer to be on before startup to use it - now there's a case study for poorly written software) and Nero 6 which came with the burner for my old machine. I got Nero 7 with the new machine but it is so knobbled to make you upgrade to the full version i stopped using it.

Everything else seems to work fine including apps and drivers for old cameras and laser printers. There are some great open source apps these days that are mostly Vista compatible that remove the expense from any required upgrade e.g media coder and audacity (there are tons of others).

I keep seeing the comment "turn UAC off" to avoid frustration.

Reminds me of people who leave their doors unlocked because locking and unlocking is a time consuming pain in the *ss.

Seems the original purpose of UAC was something... or someones attempt to accomplish something.

They say in the average office, you can find the password(s) written down within one yard of the terminal screen, more than half of the time.

I don't have UAC on my XP's. SO it's off, I guess.

I don't have viruses, trojans, worms or even malware in general, because I'm a savvy user with great protective software and SP2 is not the open unlocked door that was SP1 and original XP.

So, why, without a stroke, would I want to switch to VISTA. For the 3D tiled windows... for the infinite file search... for the UAC?

Why?

Because I don't have a choice and must?

Why?

Does anyone know?

I use Windows 2000 at work. It runs on a 1 GHz CPU and 512 MB RAM. The Windows folder uses up 2 GB. And yes, this is a well-earning IT company. The machine just works and I have all programs I need, I can open all the files I need, I can access all network ressources I need.

What would XP or Vista give me? Does it give me a proper command line? Basic security features like easy working in user mode? A modern file system? The real progress in OS technology in the last 9 years didn't happen at Microsoft, it happened over at the Linux and BSD crowd, and MacOS.

The only asset that the Windows code has over other OSes is DirectX, but I don't see how that makes any difference in a business environment.

I'm weighing in not as an IT leader of a big company(which I'm not), but as an everyday user who's also an A+ certified technician(I know it's basic).

From what I'm reading, the author is saying that Vista is a modern OS for a modern PC. If you want to install it on old hardware, expect to have problems when it comes to getting it to work with older hardware.

That being said, I am still in favour of extending XP availability, mostly because it's familiar, most of the kinks have been patched, it's relatively stable, and there is a plethora of software available for it. Note I said it's familiar first. Yes, we all like things that we know, that are comfortable.

I have been considering moving to one of the Linux distro's, ReactOS, or some other combination of OS'es on a virtual level. As soon as I can afford the hardware, I will look at upgrading to a computer with Vista, and then installing it as a vm, along with Linux, WinXP, MacOS, and others. Until then, it's not feasible for me, nor would I want to take the chance that my hardware won't work with it.

God Bless,
Darren

What's wrong with Microsoft offering both OS ? Wouldn't that mean more jobs for them ! Don't we need more jobs in this country ? Sure there will come a time to no longer deploy XP but It really is a bit to early. I see no need in comparing OS's to automobiles etc; Hey ! Bill G.! Talk to us.

I wholeheartedly agree that Microsoft SHOULD offer BOTH XP AND Vista. Not only would it mean more jobs for Microsoft, but more money, too. After all, my belief is that the only reason Microsoft came out with Vista in the first place was to make another gazillion dollars. Just think of how many MORE gazillions they could make by offering BOTH operating systems!

I have absolutely NO interest whatsoever in Vista. From what I've seen of it, and for my purposes, it's nothing but one big gimmick, and I'm no fan of gimmicks. All I want to do with a computer is word processing, e-mailing, and surf the 'Net, and for that, good ol' XP works just fine for me.

Personally, the ONLY reason I can see for switching to Vista is if you have kids (which I don't), because I've heard from a number of sources that Vista's parental controls are superior to XP's.