This has always been Microsoft's tactic to force users moving to newer product line. If XP is really going to phase out to make way for Vista, I am seriously consider converting everything to Ubuntu.

Linux is definitely the way to go for businesses in the future.Vista is just a huge waste of computer hardware resources and will leave a huge footprint of old computers.I think Microsoft did not really think about the repercussions of shifting to Windows Vista or really did not care.What was needed - Vista should have been a 'Super light on resources' OS with high functionality.

Linux is the future. Microsoft is the past. Companies that figure this out will be ahead of the game...especially with a downturn in the economy coming.

I'm typing this on my featherweight Linux powered EeePC...it's cheep...only $350 and does just about everything a mobile computer user needs to do.

My home desktops were converted to Linux years ago. I've even hauled away desktop PC's that were tossed on the street for the trash pickup...PIII's and even an early PIV and got them up and running again with Linux...how about that? Zero cost PC's!

Bye bye Microsoft...it's been nice knowing the "blue screen of death"

Microsoft is doing the same they did with XP, it's the same old history.

I remember when I use Windows 98 and XP arrived with this problems too. Today everyone have more powerful computers then really need and are comfortably with that, so if everyone told that about XP and around 2 years later the migration to XP start in large scalem, why should be different with Vista?

In that time I start to use Mandrake Linux (Mandriva Linux today) and I'm with only Linux, doing everything I need and with a far away better desktop visual.

I think Windows will lose some space for Linux, but not much. In the end of the year the moving for Vista will start to be acceptable and only then will be possible to see how (little) space Windows lose for Linux, unless Asus with eeePC and others sub priced Linux computers change the rules, the main reason of that migration won't be Vista.

I think its always been Microsoft's goal to push the hardware envelope further and further to accommodate a more resource intensive windows GUI with more "intuitive", as they put it, set of user features. Win95 did this to an extent, Win98, WinME, but much moreso WinNT, 2000, and XP, and Vista is just off the charts as a resource hog. They have always tried to push/strong arm hardware vendors to cater to their needs, typically through "incentive's" (again, thats how Microsoft thinks of them), or just out and out, good ol' fashioned dirty business tactics. I need not repeat the history lesson here of Microsft's long and glorious history on that score, as most of you should already be well aware of just how they do business. The real question is, why would any business want their good name to be associated with that of such a company, with a history that is so tainted? Especially given the fact that there are vastly more innovative and cost effective solutions out there like Linux and MAC?

Microsoft wasn't thinking about their users' needs during the creation of Vista...just their corporate interests. The pain of migration is undeniable so the only reason I can see is that old tribal knowlegde philosophy, "This is the way we've always done it so this is what we'll always do". Let's just sit back, relax and wait for the next revolution out of Redmond. It's only money.

Computer suppliers are realizing that Linux is the way to go.

http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/23168/

http://lxer.com/module/db/index.php?dbn=14

nothing new for me. I have been doing that for almost 9 years. Running any Windows OS version under linux not only runs faster than as a normal Os installed in the same machine, but also runs more stable and in some configurations you can even run two or more virtual machines while doing others tasks in background (name it CD burning, web surfing and playing mp3 at the same time).

of course the are some things you cant do on a virtual machine, but theres another product for some situations: WinE.

The reason for Vista is the promise to OEM's to sell lots and lots of new hardware. They have never cared about the customer in this scenario, only on their grip on the OEM's to force Windows on the customers. Luckily, they seem to be hitting a wall this time. If we don't buy their stuff, the next iteration of Windows might actually have the customer in mind?
Oh wait, that was a silly thought now, wasn't it?

2008 will not be the first year that M$ has been awarded a prize for services to Linux. Vista (or Vasta, as it's known) is perhaps the biggest thing M$ has done to encourage Linux adoption, and now the green vote is falling into place too.

I was talking with our company comptroller about this very subject a little while ago. I told him how I'd been running 100% Linux on my home network for the past 4 years, and that it would be wise for the company to start looking into a plan to begin migrating into a Linux environment within the next few years. I explained to him how the switch was inevitable, given how the costs of software and hardware within our current IT infrastructure will soon be driven up to the point where even OUR company would find it an untenable option. I told him how we could reduce our licensing costs as well as continue using our current hardware indefinitely, replacing it with inexpensive thin clients as necessary, while keeping our data on a secure server where it belongs.
"The increased uptime alone would make it worth the effort!", I said.
Now, the man doesn't understand much about computers, but he DOES realize how all this would affect the corporate budget, and yes, he drooled a little bit.
"How is it *you* know all this?", he asked me as I finished changing his burned-out lights and emptied his trash can. "You're a maintenance-man!"
"THAT is the beauty of Open Source!", I replied.
Shortly after than he was transferred to the main corporate office, which just yesterday announced they're looking into software alternatives.
We'll see...

Yes yes, some VM product running on Linux I think is the answer. I selected Parallels over VMware. VMware has been very VERY fussy about running the various operating systems in our environment. Get the environment stabilized for one version of VMware, start over when the next version comes out. I even had VMware tech support send a higher version of a particular third party utility we were using... when the next version of VMware came out it was broken again. Their answer, upgrade to the latest version of that third party product. egads! Parallels so far is working MUCH BETTER than VMware.

Ubuntu 7.04 for the host OS. Ubuntu 7.10 seems to have bugs, so right back to 7.04 I went, and am loving it!

The Ubuntuzilla project fetches down the latest builds of FF and TB direct from Mozilla... no waiting until Ubuntu releases the new version.

I'm running XP in VirtualBox on Ubuntu 7.10 and am very pleased with it. It lets me do the remaining windows specific tasks that I have, Quickbooks for one and lets me have Linux goodness for all the other tasks.

At another location I am doing the opposite, with an XP machine running Ubuntu in VirtualBox for Windows. It's a powerful tool. Just have plenty of memory. 2 Gigs on the Ubuntu machine is fine for running two instances of XP and still getting good performance on Linux at the same time.

I never anticipate using Vista. My only experience with it is playing with it for about aa half hour before wiping it from a co-workers Dell laptop and installing XP in its place so she could play her legacy games and get her existing printer to work. Vista = The new ME.

I think that the idea of running Windows in a virtual machine is fabulous. I can see IT departments around the world leaping to implement and support a whole new unfamiliar infrastructure as a middleware layer, and I imagine the users will be just pleased as punch to suddenly find themselves confronted with all the complexities introduced by Linux. Actually migrating to Linux is almost more likely, except for the lack of support for a panoply of custom applications and the need to retrain the desktop support staff and the rest of the company.

What will actually happen is that a small number of small companies with Linux-savvy IT staff will embrace one of the two options above. An even smaller number of companies will embrace the Mac. The rest (those who have not already started to deploy Vista) will wait until Vista Service Pack 2 comes out, which will correspond nicely with their desktop renewal cycle, allowing a simultaneous deployment of newer, more efficient hardware and extensively-patched and revamped code, while leaving the Linux fanboys continuing to gnash their furry teeth in chagrin.

Well about more GREEN,when my company was jumping to win XP from win98 it was not so difficult. And now some machines is started with Win Vista with updates and Office 2007 with Excel problems its started for me with headache. And office 2007 with his terrible docx was making everybody confusing about how too open and asking "Do you have office 2007 because i cant open it" and started with negotiating with other companies in what standard should been used for documents I mean the extension docx .And I heard about windows 7. Well it will cost much more for the company. Now I have too make a plan too reduce the cost. And at this moment i am started too discuss with other people of the my dept ICT too move to linux to reduce the GREEN "DOLLARS" I use on my laptop Linux and i have no problems with anything that has todo with virus or whatever it is, and i didnt spend no one GREEN DOLLAR. BTW linux is starting too reduce power on my laptop and keeping my laptop longer alive I mean batteries.. I think we have think too bee lesser GREEN and much more GREEN for our Mother nature.