InfoWorld's "Save XP" petition effort is fast approaching 100,000 signatures, and our colleagues in Canada and Germany have launched their own versions. Almost all the major media have run stories, and thousands of user comments have been posted in this blog. We've clearly struck a nerve.

At the same time, many commenters -- on our site and elsewhere -- have lost sight of what the "Save XP" campaign is actually about.

It's not about Linux or Mac OS X

A small group of vocal Linux zealots has used it to promote Ubuntu, and a smaller and less vocal of Mac enthusiasts has tweaked Windows users for not switching to Mac OS X. Both reactions are to be expected, but they're not what the campaign is about. If you do want to switch to another operating system, but we're not taking sides in the platform battles. People should use whatever works best for them, and we are happy they have several choices. They should.

We are saying that Vista is not ready to be the standard Windows platform, and for the majority that cannot realistically look outside the Windows world, XP needs to remain a choice.

It's not about techno-machismo versus Luddism

Another group of people argues that anyone who wants to stick with XP is afraid of the future -- not man enough to get the newest toy. That's a silly argument.

While some people may look at operating systems as a way of demonstrating how cool they are, most people use an operating system as a platform for getting stuff done, whether that be running business apps, playing games or using the Web. You don;'t change OSes to be cool any more than you throw out your house's heater for a new technology every time one comes along. Not unless you have more money than sense.

Yes, you want your operating system to offer advanced capabilities if you need them, and to have an elegant, friendly interface that makes using that power easier. That's why people are attracted to technologies like TiVo, Mac OS X and BlackBerry -- they provide both form and function. But getting Vista because the Aero interface is somehow cool, or just because Vista is new, smacks of mindless consumerism. You buy an OS to get things done, not to act as a glorified video game or because the ads tell you to.

It's not about Microsoft's XP support commitment

A more rationale version of that argument is that there's nothing to worry about, since Microsoft will continue to support XP for some time. That's true, but we have not criticized Microsoft's XP support plans. We have criticized Microsoft for not letting people continue to buy XP on new machines past the June 30 end-of-sales date for most copies of the OS.

There's a huge different between support and sales. It does you no good to have ongoing XP support if you can't get XP on a new system. I find the support-oriented arguments to be either disingenuous attempts to change the debate or naive misunderstanding of what we are actually urging.

It is about controlling your environment

What we have heard loud and clear from both IT professionals and end users is that many of them do not want Vista. They tend to have different reasons.

For IT, the reasons center around cost of training, deployment, and support. The biggest concern is over compatibility -- both for hardware and software. Vista has major compatibility issues, which Gartner says likely won't be truly fixed a href="http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/02/08/06NF-save-xp-analysts_1.html">for another year. Not all of this is Microsoft's fault, but it isn't about fault. The issue is when does it make operational sense to move to Vista. Until it does, XP should be easy to obtain as needed.

Vista does bring IT some advantages, but IT people I spoke with also recognize that users don't get much from Vista, at least not on the surface. So deploying Vista is just another project that IT needs to prepare for and prioritize under its own schedule, not Microsoft's.

Individual users and small businesses are particularly adverse to Vista. There are several reasons, but two come up most often.

One is that Vista represents a significant shift in user interface, to one that is harder to use than XP's. In an attempt to shield users from the OS, Microsoft has hidden or done away with many menu options.

I can't tell you how many calls I got from friends and family members who simply couldn't find anything on their new Vista systems. (I've downgraded them all to the XP they know and understand.) Maybe they could figure it out at some point, but they don't see why they should just so they can check email, play a game or bring some work home.

I've been a user of every desktop OS since the Apple IIe's -- including every version of DOS, Windows and Mac OS, as well as some versions of GEM, OS/2 and VAX/VMS -- and I struggled with Vista's interface. I too went back to XP.

The other reason is compatibility: a lot of software and hardware doesn't work in Vista. People can't afford to keep buying new stuff just to maintain compatibility with a new OS. It might be good for the economy if they could, but let's get real. Software and hardware vendors should update their software for compatibility at no charge to their customers (Microsoft can foot the bill if it insists on an OS change that breaks correctly designed software and hardware drivers).

The larger issue underlying all of this is the fact that Windows is not merely a product. It is a fundamental part of the global infrastructure, like the Internet and the internal combustion engine. When Microsoft changes that infrastructure, the human and economic effects are huge.

At its scale, I believe that Microsoft has to be a steward of the public good, not just a vendor. (This is at the heart of why the EU has been after Microsoft for a decade, and why a century ago the U.S. and European nations started regulating utilities, banks and manufacturers with similar reach. They're not just selling toothpaste and soda pop.)

What Microsoft and PC makers need to do

This brings me back to the purpose of the "Save XP" campaign: letting people control their environments. Questionable UI changes and compatibility issues threaten that control. Worse, the simple option to retaining control -- being able to add XP on new systems as needed -- is being eliminated.

Until the market is ready to switch to Vista for its own purposes, XP should be available easily. That means available on OEM and system-builder PCs -- and not just a few models. That means available in shrinkwrapped versions you can order from Amazone.com or get at Best Buy.

That does not mean Microsoft's stingy options for XP availability after June 30. Sure, enterprises that have a Vista upgrade site license can downgrade their systems to XP, but very few others. If you got Vista on your PC -- which nearly everyone does -- there are no such downgrade rights. If you bought any version of Vista other than Vista Business or Vista Ultimate, you can't downgrade. In other words, almost no one but enterprises can downgrade to XP on new machines. So, sure, InfoWorld's core readers can take care of themselves, but not the rest of the world.

Even more pernicious, several readers have pointed out their new Vista-equipped PCs don't have XP drivers available, so they can't downgrade to XP even if they have a license that allows it. That's the fault of Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo, Acer, Sony, Toshiba and so on. Buyers should call them on it by insisting on XP-compatible equipment across the board.

If I were Microsoft's leadership, I would toss Vista into the trash, as it did with Windows Millennium eight years ago, then issue a Windows XP Second Edition (as it did with Windows 98 eight years ago) that takes the key benefits of XP. I would focus on Windows 7, rather than keep trying to push Vista down our throats.

OK, that's too radical. So how about doing an XP Second Edition while also continuing to rework Vista? (Microsoft can get rid of most of the Vista flavors at the same time, which will also help its customers and the independent consultants.) Then WIndows 7 can be the common upgrade path. Microsoft did that with Windows 98 Second Edition and Windows 2000, after all.

Fat chance either way, I know: Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has said that he's using the well-designed Windows Server 2008's optimizations for desktop Vista as a way to push Vista onto our PCs. Microsoft clearly will keep pushing until we all give up, or maybe the EU -- the only entity that seems to recognize that Microsoft is more than just a vendor -- fines it another few billion.

But there has been a steady, if quiet, stream of mid- and high-level departures from Microsoft, especially from the Vista management crew, in the last six months. Maybe th new blood will be able to chart a different course, not stick blindly to the past playbook.

Something has been rotten in Redmond

Some people have accused InfoWorld of an anti-Microsoft bias -- which I think our very positive reviews of Windows Server 2008, among other products, belies. But it is fair to say that many of us think Microsoft is wrong about Vista, and needs to stop pretending that all is fine.

Microsoft is not stupid, and despite its public statements that the Vista rollout is going fine, it knows better. What it may not have is the hubris to admit a mistake and move on.

The whole Vista effort has been a series of missteps and miscues. The OS shipped three years late, minus many of the key features originally touted. Starved of OS upgrade revenue, Microsoft rushed the end of XP's life -- originally giving just a year, then extending it to 18 months.

A Microsoft spokesperson told me there is no standard transition period for major software at Microsoft; instead, there's an assumed five-year life for a major software product, and the overlap depends on when the replacement actually shifts. In Vista's, the new OS took more than five years, so Microsoft had to actually decide what the overlap would be by essentially extending XP's life. So it initially gave us a year -- gee, thanks. Analysts I spoke with recommended that Microsoft provide customers at least two years for transition, regardless of when the products actually ship. Microsoft should take their advice and base its transition plans on what's good for customers, not on internal sales milestones.

The Vista missteps continue. About a week ago, there were the rapid-fire series of mistakes with Vista SP1, with several significant flaws making their way into the version sent to manufacturing and provided to some customers.

And we learned late last week that Microsoft's own executives had compatibility problems with Vista when it was released. You'd think they'd know how to address them.

Those embarrassing revelations came in court documents that pointed out a more serious problem: Microsoft misled customers as to whether their systems and peripherals could handle Vista. The company decided to certify whole swaths of hardware it knew were not really Vista-capable as "Vista Capable." (Buyers whose systems were clearly not Vista-capable sued, and that case is what produced the internal documentation.) Jim Allchin, the Vista chief, said in court filings that he was unaware of that decision; whether true or not, that fiasco shows yet again how dysfunctional Microsoft's Vista management was.

And this rocky history shows why XP should be kept available for new sales as long as the market is not ready for Vista. Microsoft has mishandled and underdelivered on Vista, and it should not expect its customers to pay for its own mistakes. After all, much of the Vista problem -- and thus the desire to keep XP around -- is a result of Microsoft's own poor actions.

The only option available

The bottom line is that the rush to force Vista on everyone is just wrong.

The problem is, people don't really have much choice. You can't vote with your feet. This is not a free market where there are lots of options that customers can switch among as needed -- there's even less choice than for TV or phone service (which interestingly enough remain somewhat regulated because of that fact). The price to switch to Mac OS or Linux, is quite high, and the ability to keep XP is low if you eventually want to get a new PC.

The only option is for customers to pressure Microsoft to do the right thing. That's what the "Save XP" campaign is meant to be a venue for.

But whether you sign our petition or instead tell Microsoft directly what you think, now's the time to do so.

The clock is ticking, and in fewer than four months there won't be an XP option for most of you.