I'd say it's a bit early for calling B.S. on the latest from Redmond, though Vista is most certainly finding a rough road to adoption.

On user interface issues, I somewhat agree, though as always Vista offers ways to get back a lot of the older lock and feel.  Getting there is a large part of the battle though, and if you don't like the new interface that much then you are likely going to be plenty frustrated just in trying to get things back to a familiar place.

I feel a bit of sympathy for Microsoft though as they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.  Eventually the interface has to change to make improvements.  How much is the question, and in what areas also.

Business users may very well be slow to adopt Vista but then again some vendors ship only Vista on some of their systems.  Dell started with a Vista only position and had to back off and offer choice when the marketplace told 'em to stuff that approach.  Some buyers get the systems and then blow away Vista and install XP anyway.

There are some things that will likely help push Vista to mainstream though:

• DirectX 10 and gaming support that comes with same.
• New devices that find themselves unsupported in XP due to lack of older driver support
• Devices such as HD-DVD drives and TV tuners that won't see XP drivers because of digital rights management "features" (read: requirements)
• The soon to be fully implemented Windows Live Gaming (or whatever the proper name is) that lets users play against Xbox Live users or other Windows Live Gaming (again, whatever the name is) users.  Users will be able to play games like Halo on either Vista PC's or Xbox 360 systems.  Other games will be there too, including many social games that will let people find an easy to navigate environment for game matching, tournaments, etc.
• 64-bit support as more hardware heads into that direction.

Give it time and Vista will gain steam.  We might see Linux gain traction too (and I'd be plenty happy to see it), but it's still way early in the game.

Terp,

I would estimate that I probably have over $1000 worth of software, and I don't plan on upgrading all of that software until I have to. I am aware that upgrading is one of those things you simply must endure in tech, but it is not cost effective to be continually doing so.

In my opinion, the boys in Redmond shouldn't have spilled the beans about the next O/S as they were beginning the marketing on this one. Microsoft is far from "done", obviously, but I doubt Vista will be the runaway success they're hoping for.

You know you people are something else! I can't believe on what I just read actually.
Vista isn't a bad OS at all, granted upgrading from XP to Vista sometimes doesn't work to well. It all depends on the system and what the person has installed prior to the upgrade and if he or she ran the upgrade advisor program that Microsoft has on their site. If they didn't do that then yeah Vista would be a nightmare to use, but if they followed that to a "T" and unstalled what it asked them to uninstall then it would work fine.
I know becasue that is what I did on my Windows XP Media Edition system.. The upgrade didn't go to well in fact i had crashed and all but then I realize I need to do a fresh install.
ANd I have to say the install is allot easier then XP install could ever be! In fact on my old Gateway GT5012 Pentium D system XP would had to have the restore CD that Gateway supplied me with inorder to get the network running and all this other stuff.

But with Vista it did it all, it had the drivers for my Network card, and for the built in Sound card!

Plus Vista is the Most easiest OS ever to use, so I don't see how or why people are calling Vista the ME2 or even comparing it to ME at all!

Unless these people are scared of Vista or scared of anything New and/or won't take the time to learn Vista and look around then of course they would be scared of it. Also the Update is alot better to, no more going to that Microsoft Update web page and waiting and waiting as it scans your drive.


SO I well end it with this thought:

Vista is worth the $$$ it really is expecally when you go with the Ultimate version of Vista because in that it has everything! Moving backgrounds and more and I would recommend 2 GIGs of memory.

Gideon Vista well be runaway success it well, just you wait and Linux is trying to catch up but it won't be able to unless it gets easier with installing programs and uninstalling and gets rid of requiring the user to compile programs just inorder to get it to run.

Neal

Seriously: if you're a systems administrator, why do you upgrade a whole network KNOWING that MS' next O/S release is coming out in 2 years? That's just a waste of money, in my opinion.

Microsoft completely ignored backwards compatibility on Vista, which in my opinion is a stupid decision for ANY operating system; MICROSOFT games (specifically RoN) will not run on Vista. As a dual boot XP/Vista machine makes no sense whatsoever, when I get a Vista machine up and running (which I will do; I've already fessed to it being a good O/S), it will complement, not replace, my XP/Linux machines.

I know of at least five people personally who have upgraded, then gone back to XP. I'm sure there are many more on a national level, as our area is not very urban. The truth is, to a non-techie, it's a PIA, and it's intimidating.

As for Linux, apparently your experience with it is rather limited, because there are versions of Linux that are VERY close to being "plug and play" operating systems.

Now let's get to your opening statement. You "can't believe what you're reading"? Can't believe everyone is not a Windows fan? Microsoft puts out, in my opinion, a good product in their operating systems. But the cost of upgrading to Vista (sorry, I wouldn't buy any version BUT Ultimate) spread out over even a small home network can quickly become cost prohibitive and it's always a good idea to look at your different options.

That's a Gateway problem, not an XP problem. I've done countless XP installs and most were quick and painless. Only compatibility problems were video driver issues with the SP2 upgrade, and those were chiefly on Dell Optiplexes.

The problems with vista stems from the completely lack of backwards compatibility. And the fact that its basically a means to push more DRM on users.

But people will have to upgrade. For one thing, 64bit is here to stay, and while almost no one makes drivers for winxp 64, everything does for vista.

Most vista sells will be bundling with new computers, just like all other MS OS'. Current computers are just not powerful enough to run vista COMFORTABLY. that is, the performance hit compared to XP is too high. But any new computer purchased today with sufficient ram and power would have no noticeable performance issues.

Yes its intimidating for some non techie people, but the fact that everything is PRETTIER would be the biggest selling point to those exact same people.

Gamers will upgrade in 6 monthes or so when they will need DX10 for the next generation of games and will be will be willing to accept the compatibility issues with DX9 games.

And offices will be forced to upgrade to maintain compatibility when it gains enough ground, Microsoft is not very backwards compatibly ON PURPOSE after all...

I find myself agreeing with the arguement that Vista can be a pain. The most difficult 'pill' to swallow is the cost of upgrading the hardware and software to accommodate the new operating system. This combined with the information being leaked about the next full OS from Microsoft (codename: 'Vienna'?) departing from the Windows 'norm' and requiring that third party vendors rewrite their programs to run under this new OS (not sure how accurate the articles were on this point) - would tend to make anyone hesitate to move to Vista.

I for one have a desktop (home-built) and a notebook (2005 Dell) and they have significant differences in the 'Vista' experience. The desktop can easily handle Vista, and has shown a big improvement with the release of the ATI 7.4 Catalyst drivers. This combined with the installation of only Vista compatible software makes for a good (not yet great) user's experience.

On the other hand, the Dell notebook (Inspiron 9300 w/ single core dothan 2 Ghz processor) is far from impressive. I suspect that a MacBook Pro may be a better 'portable' solution for my needs the next time out. Investing in something that may turn into a machine with a two year life-span is not very attractive (based on the current 'Vista - Vienna' ambiguity).

In summation (based on personal experience); for a new user who is purchasing a desktop for the first time and is purchasing 'Vista compatible' software to go along with it, I think Vista is a good deal. For others, I suspect the upgrade will be more difficult to justify when a user has a machine running XP without issue and the 'change' currently has many unanswered questions regarding the long-term investment benefits of such a decision.

Nice thought provoking article, Gideon.

MS has already announced extended support for XP Pro through 2011. They've also already put out that their next O/S will ship in 2009. That means the next O/S should be in SP2 by the time extended support for XP Pro ends.

And don't rule out Linux as a potential solution. Even the boys from Redmond are themselves getting into the open source game.

Yeah, opening the package manager window, clicking on what you want to install, and then clicking Apply is just so tedious. A full system upgrade can be done with just three mouse clicks. You obviously don't know much about modern Linux.

dont have a problem with vista ultamate at all i did a good move yes it takes time to negociate but get ther its new and worth persvering with microsoft done a good job on it eventualy it be great to all as it updates ,regards fudoshi

Installing programs in Linux? It's EASIER than on Windows XP, let alone Vista. Synaptic is your friend.

I personally wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that release.

I bought a new Dell in March of this year, and ofcourse the Vista Premium was all ready installed. I was not happy with the money I had to put out for a lot of new software. But I went ahead and upgraded to the Ultimate addition. In the beginning because of the money and the change in O/S I wasn't so happy. But now I love it. Much, Much safer to use, I don't crash and burn and all in all I am just a everyday user, not an experienced techie, and I wouldn't go back to XP. I love the everything about it.   

Personally I don't think Vista was ready for prime time. I've done a lot, (A LOT), of reading on various web sites and blogs about user reactions to Vista. By and far I've noticed a common theme in most pro Vista comments. "I love Vista, it works great..." followed by the caveat (read that appologetics) "after I...upgraded, tweaked, turned off, replaced, shut off, got a new, when the new driver...". You get the point.
I have Ultimate on my tower and Home Premium on 2 laptops. I'm still looking for the WOW. A lot of comments dodge that by saying there is a lot of new and improved "under the hood". Like? UAC? (cough) Superfetch? (resource hog) Windows Search? (repackaged indexing also a hog) IPV6? (whenever they get around to implementing it) Windows Experience Index? (you're kidding right?) Aero? Side Bar?
Vista is great "concept ware", but poorly written and implemented. It makes the assumption that the average user is an idiot that needs to be protected from himself. Don't you find that just the least bit arrogant and insulting of MS?
Before I get flamed for not knowing what I'm doing, let me state I am not an average user, and am an occassional gamer. I've been building my own systems since the days of DOS and 3.1. I'm more of a hardware geek, and manage to get into trouble a couple of times a year with my wife for buying new hardware.
Some questions to ask yourself before you go all fanboi for Vista; why is it that with Vista being beta tested so long, and MS flying the Vista banner since Barney was a pup, did it take so long for hardware vendors to write new drivers? Heck ATI and NVIDIA still don't have their act together, never mind HP, Cannon and a plethora of other common hardware and software manufactureres. (Can you say IPOD?)
If Vista is so great, why do uber Vista supporters feel obliged to mention SP1 in every testimonial they make? (Things that make you say hmmm?)
Vista is not user friendly. There I said it. When I want to look at "device manager" I don't want to go through 3 different screens to get there. Yes I know, that can be "tweaked", but that's my point. Why do I have to tweak? Who decided I didn't really want to go right there anyway?
While I have not gone back to XP yet, it is in the back of my mind. Probably because in good faith I reinstalled every compatible program, or upgraded drivers and software to use Vista and the thought of doing all that again in reverse is a bit daunting. Just a few more nudges and it'll happen. My 8 month old HP multi-function printer not working almost put me over the edge. Vista got a reprieve when HP coughed up a new driver/software package at the last minute.
Good topic Gid; although you may want to recycle it again, say in June, when more of us get dupped by MS.

Is Vista a worthwhile OS for the enterprise?  Hell no.  System requirements are far too steep for most medium to large organizations, since most of their machines are probably 3+ years old, recycled from employee to employee, and loaded with the bare-essentials to begin with.  Vista represents a greater cost beyond simply purchasing OS licenses.  The advantages Vista offers over XP are not compelling enough to an enterprise environment to justify buying all new systems.  I bet you won't see Vista in large, non-tech, companies for another 5 years.  XP still suits their needs.

Is Vista a wortwhile OS to Mom & Pop User?  Honestly, it's no better and no worse than XP for people who just want to surf the web, send email and type letters.  To the average user, aside from UI changes, Vista isn't actually a step backwards in terms of stability.  Should these people upgrade their existing systems?  No.  However chances are they'll have it on their next new PC from Dell, HP or Gateway.  That's fine.  Those users won't suffer too much (or any more than they did transitioning from 98 to 2000/XP).

Is Vista a worthwhile OS for the tech enthusiast?  Well, if you're not going over to the OSS side of the fence, Vista packs a lot in for the technophile to play with.  If you like having new gadgets to fiddle with, and want to be ahead of the general curve on tech, then Vista is probably something you're moving to soon, if you haven't already.  You won't have trouble relearning the UI and functionality, because chances are you've had to relearn that dozens of times as you bounce around between different operating systems (Linux, MacOS, Windows etc.)

Is Vista a worthwhile OS for the gamer?  Absolutely not... at least not now.  Driver support is still very iffy, and DirectX 10, the entire reason gamers would upgrade to Vista, is still essentially a myth.  Not a game on the market takes advantage of DX10, and we won't be seeing one that does until likely late fall/early winter (I'm not counting Halo 2 PC since that's actually a DX8 game written for a P3 733MHz system back in the days of the GeForce 2 card... the fact that they're making it Vista-only for DX10 is complete marketing bull).

Vista is far from "ME2"  WinME was a horrible OS that didn't actually function properly even without any apps running.  Vista is a suitable addition to the Windows line, but right now there still isn't a compelling reason to move over.

Reference FYI:

WWW Link

Vista is far from "ME2" WinME was a horrible OS that didn't actually function properly even without any apps running. Vista is a suitable addition to the Windows line, but right now there still isn't a compelling reason to move over.

Best response so far, zoomba. I agree the ME2 name wasn't fair, which is why I compared it to New Coke. Nothing wrong with it, it just doesn't live up to the hype.

I personally wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that release.

True, ID. I'm counting more on late 2010. MS has never had an OS release ship on time, why start now? Still, if it makes it by late '10, there will be time to pick the bugs out.

I've been running Vista permanently on all my home systems since the first Release Candidate. I'm not sure what the problem is out there with so many users. I had no issues when upgrading my 5 systems. No hardware needed to be upgraded. Vista drivers were available as of it's official release for all my devices.

Now I did find UAC a bit tiresome so I elected to shut it off. But that was no more difficult to shut off than say, shutting off Messenger was in XP. I also shut off the Security Centre alerts as they became annoying too  . I find a good internet security/antivirus software keeps the systems protected and give me peace of mind. (I use Kaspersky 6).

I confess, that while I was in the beta program I did find a number of problems but they have all been worked out. I now find the system more stable than XP and have had no real issues since permanently upgrading all systems at the end of January.
Maybe part of the reason for having very few issues is that when I was in the beta program I built all of my present systems, (which at the time of building were installed with XP SP2), with Vista's hardware requirements in mind.

All in all I like the OS. I don't find it to be a step back from XP, quite the contrary. It's technically better, more stable and visually more pleasing. I have no intentions of taking a step back to XP.  

The hardware for me isn't the issue. My money's in software. With good software getting increasingly expensive, many times the upgrades are cost prohibitive.

As I have mentioned before, ironically, one of the conflicts was with a MICROSOFT game. You would think they would at least make their own software compatible.

I really hope Microsoft isn't showing a trend back to the 90's where a PC was obsolete as soon as you pulled it out of the box. There will be people who will keep on top of it, but when you're talking about large scale solutions, it could mean that businesses get disgusted with the excessive cost and stay with solutions that are less secure simply because of the cost of trying to keep ahead of the game. I know businesses that are still running on NT4 platforms for that very reason, and it's hard to sell them on newer solutions, even though the result of their decision is a swiss cheese network that hackers would drool over when/if they discover it.