Login:
Password:

Is Vista dead in the water?

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

April 11, 2008, 3:41 PM

Analysts from Gartner said earlier this week that Windows is collapsing under its own weight. Talk in the blogosphere keeps pointing to a Windows 7 release date earlier than 2010. Is Vista already a lame duck?

ANALYSIS Certainly Microsoft wants to avoid another debacle on the scale of Windows Me, an operating system release that tilted more toward a mistake than an upgrade, and whose publicity turned into pushback from both customers and the press.

However, two analysts from Gartner certainly didn't help Vista much with their comments earlier this week. At an Emerging Trends conference in Las Vegas, Michael Silver and Neil MacDonald argued that Microsoft is collapsing under its own weight, and that Windows has become monolithic.

Central to their point was the fact that Microsoft is leery to cut the cord, so to speak, on more than two decades of applications. Backwards compatibility remains something of an expectation with each new Windows release.

At the same time, this support for the past has gotten them into trouble. "Security should have been enough of a reason for Microsoft to stop bringing these applications forward," Directions on Microsoft analyst Michael Cherry told BetaNews.

As MacDonald and Silver argued, the ballooning hardware requirements attached to Microsoft's recent releases -- especially Vista -- have some of its clients wondering if it's just more worthwhile to stick with their current setups and wait for the next version of Windows.

"I found [their analysis] very interesting," Cherry said of the Gartner pair. "Look at all the hardware requirements [Microsoft] has gotten into."

The reasoning behind the leeriness over Vista in the enterprise is this: Evidence suggests that Windows 7 would be more modular, and as a result, a lot less hardware requirement-heavy.

Many groups -- Gartner included -- have now seemingly begun to advise clients that a Vista could be more than just a software upgrade: It could mean these folks could be buying new hardware too.

While this is certainly something the computer manufacturers would not mind at all, it's a sticking point for corporations. Faced with buying new machines, they would much rather just stick with XP, which for many is working out just fine.

Thus, in the case of Gartner -- which, by the way, had been urging its clients to upgrade as soon as possible after Vista launched in 2007 -- movement to Vista is now only being suggested as old and dying computers are being phased out. Only then, the firm believes, should Vista be introduced.

Could this movement of both sentiment and support away from Vista be the catalyst for recent suggestions that Windows 7 should launch sooner than the oft-publicized early 2010 target date?

It could be the most logical reason suggested thus far. Microsoft's customers appear ready to pass over Vista, and the company could be taking notice. If it cannot get its customers to bite on the latest Windows release, maybe it can on the next.

Next: Microsoft resurrects the old carrot-and-stick approach...

Continued. . .
1 | 2 | Next >>

Add a Comment (370 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By pitdingo2

posted Apr 18, 2008 - 11:50 AM

Ballmer admits Vista is a half-baked turd.

http://www.cio.com/artic..._is_a_Work_in_Progress_

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Apr 18, 2008 - 12:29 AM

Perhaps they could re-market it as "Lame Duck"? Couldn't possibly be worse than the penguin.

Score: 0

By cyberia

posted Apr 17, 2008 - 5:00 PM

New OS's should never be installed on old machines! On a new PC, vista is an improvement over XP. It's that simple.

A-and "monolithic?" Only 'nixs are multilithic. I used to have a lot of respect for Gartner, but they've become as bad as politicians; a lot of hot air!

Score: 0

By deminicus

posted Apr 17, 2008 - 3:10 PM

if 7 does go the modular route i hope the core module will be writting to have nothing todo with backwards compatibility. And if you wanted to run some "legacy" apps you would then install a module for that which would be sorta like vm to run old apps. wishful thinking.

Score: 0

By turistas

posted Apr 17, 2008 - 7:29 AM

I am using vista, and i don't want to back to xp. It's the same thing like some years ago people can't decide with os to use - win 98se or 2000:)

Score: 0

By ToeKneeC

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 2:11 PM

I like Vista. I'm OK with it going away for Windows 7. But what makes you anti-Vista people think the next Windows won't need an Intel Duo 2, 2-4 gigs ram and good video card? You are going to have to spend a little money or basically be stuck with a 10 year old OS. So why not spend money now, enjoy a fast system (with XP or Vista).

Score: 0

By Program86

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 11:50 AM

DEAD AS DEAD CAN BE!

Vista = the most worthless OS EVER.

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

edited Apr 17, 2008 - 2:35 AM

Sorry,

Vista is the finest O/S money can buy. Too bad the low IQ'ers just don't get it.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 1:20 PM

Thank God for you Trolls.

If it weren't for you, this topic would have like...5 posts in it.

Score: 0

By DakotaSunRunner

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 8:44 AM

Old news and now boring, lets move on, all the talk on this forum will not make one bit of difference to Microsoft. If you like Vista then so be it, if you do not then so be it, in all actuality no one cares.

Score: 0

By ToeKneeC

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 8:56 AM

That is true (as I sit here playing Crysis with DirectX 10) :)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 9:16 AM

No you don't.

You sit there playing Crysis with the high settings unlocked.

Contrary to false marketing, Crysis is not a DX10 game, as proven by running it in "DX10 mode" in Windows XP using DX9. (The two are completely incompatible...hence the need to have DX9 libraries installed to play DX9 games in Vista)

Any game that claims to be DX10 and runs in XP is either flat-out lying, or supports *both* DX versions. The fact that Crysis DX10 mode works in XP proves it's not actually DX10, just a marketing ploy.

But hey...decent game anyway, so...

Score: 0

By ToeKneeC

edited Apr 15, 2008 - 2:18 PM

Think you are wrong man. 1. I don't have DirectX 9 installed (I did for a few older games, but just did a clean install 3 weeks ago with SP1).

Go here http://webpages.charter.net/bliss/

If it was just marketing - show me a link to the class action lawsuit, as their would be one. And two - I have played Crysis XP and Vista. Now, I'll be honest, with the same settings, the only thing I could see improved was water, and smoke.

But maybe I should have said BioShock :)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 3:14 PM

A review of the differences between "very high" and "high" settings does not prove a thing, nor does the lack of a class action lawsuit.

DX10 does *not* work in XP. At All. Period. Crysis can run on the "DX10" setting in XP. Case closed.

As for the lack of lawsuit? Who cares? The case wouldn't win anyway. DX10 "required" could simply mean (to them) DX10 being installed allows the "very high" DX9 setting to function.

As for DX9 not being installed...you sure? Check the files Crysis installed. :)

Score: 0

By ToeKneeC

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 3:29 PM

First - your screen name is awesome.

I could only compare XP (DX9) to Vista (DX10). And not side by side, as it was the same computer (my main one). But if a game claims it is DX10 and isn't - it would be all over the gaming web.

I am OK upgrading my PC use Vista for Games - as I am a game player. If the games look even a little better I'm for it. But when the next Major Xbox ships, and it support a keyboard and mouse, I'll be done with PC gaming.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 5:46 PM

Didn't dis Vista for a moment, you seem to be under that impression, thought I'd clear that up for ya.

As for it being all over the gaming web...it was. Ars covered it briefly. No-one cared.

Hopefully games that actually *use* DX10, and use it well, will start coming out later this summer. Should be interesting to see.

Score: 0

By xtme

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 1:29 AM

Beta testers needed for iSnazzle P2p!

http://fileforum.betanew...le_Browser/1205369842/1

join up and help populate the network with mp3's and video!

Score: 0

By cannie

edited Apr 15, 2008 - 5:54 AM

IMO the main goal of MS when they created Vista was the fight against piracy, and that is also the reason for many of their present decisions. Maybe it is in absolute terms something impossible to reach. I would even say that without piracy MS would not have the worldwide presence that they enjoy today. In the other side are the interests of the "asian" hardware and drivers manufacturers: in the good old times manufacturers always stood by MS, but even when at first sight it seems that they have a common interest because you buy preinstalled Vista by default, it should not be forgotten that software piracy boosts hardware sales.

Score: 0

By roj

edited Apr 14, 2008 - 9:13 PM

"Is Vista dead in the water?"

To all btu the most myopic or fanboi, the short answer is YES.

Old news - let's move on.

Score: 0

By DatabaseBen

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 8:59 PM

vista will turn out to be a disaster in history for microsoft.

to begin with microsoft waited too long for its' initial release, thus it lost 2 years of sales. and now with the recession, the next two years will be stagnent for it as well.

perhaps, microsoft will need to create a stimulus initiative if it wants its product to move off the dusty shelves of stores filled with chirping crickets instead of cash register ringing customers.

Score: 0

By kirilenko

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 8:39 PM

I really like that fantastic Aero thingy, this looks like the Star-Wars computers from euh 1960 but just more boring.

Score: 0

By horsecharles

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 5:18 PM

I said it a million times: Vista should've been 64bit ONLY.
By NOT doing so, MS set computing back a decade, just like when it didn't port to Risc years ago. And as well MS has left MacOs & Linux an opening...

Vista just oximoronically turned into a delayed rush job-- with other planned improvements / key elements removed.

What a shame...

Score: 0

By Morsel

edited Apr 14, 2008 - 3:43 PM

Hahahahaha! A petition to save XP...
http://weblog.infoworld....04/save_windows_xp.html

Score: 0

By internetworld7

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 1:15 PM

Guys, life really is better on a Mac.

Score: 0

By TomA102210

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 4:32 PM

Not hardly. Mac's have their own share of problems.

Score: 0

By skags442

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 1:49 PM

ya i agree, if you cant figure out how to use a pc

Score: 0

By improvelence

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 2:44 PM

And if you want to give up a whole slew of familiar applications and replace them with "simple" apple ones that simply don't do much of anything except the basics.

Score: 0

By NULLedge

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 6:27 PM

1995 called. it wants its line back

Score: 0

By Morsel

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 3:01 PM

How old are you? 12?

Score: 0

By internetworld7

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 4:42 PM

You're giving him to much credit. I was going to say 9.

Score: 0

By JameyZ

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 8:37 PM

The younger you are, the higher is your value.

Score: 0

By Hollywood__

edited Apr 14, 2008 - 12:39 PM

The ratio of actual Vista users who own it on a computer that was bult specifically for it, and hate it, is very small. The people who upgraded from XP on older computers are the ones having problems.

Selling Vista as an XP upgrade was a huge mistake. They should have only put it on new PC's and notebooks that could actually run it at full speed with all of the correct drivers installed.

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 4:11 PM

The biggest problem that I have seen with Vista is the people that upgraded an already slow crapware filled PC then upgraded it. People seem to believe that an upgrade will magically clean their infected PC to a new state.

I agree.

From what I have seen the upgrades have been the biggest problem. Start with a trashed Windows load to start with, upgrade and expect miracles.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 11:48 PM

People seem to believe that an upgrade will magically clean their infected PC to a new state.

I agree.


Heh...

Well, I'm guessing *that* didn't come out right. :p

Score: 0

By SGD

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 8:56 AM

The broken Vista PC's that I have seen are upgraded XP machines that were full of spyware and adware. The MS seminar that I went to said that an upgrade should be installed on a clean XP load. Who is going to reformat their PC install XP then install Vista. To many people thought that installing Vista on top of their already slow XP machine would make everything good again.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Apr 15, 2008 - 9:12 AM

As they always have.

The entire upgrade SKU for Vista is a joke and should never have been done.

What I though was funny about what I quoted is that, by the wording, you stated that you agreed with those who thought it would clean their system :p

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 1:33 PM

Bingo.

Never should have even considered an upgrade SKU.

Not on an 6+ year jump. That was bone-headed of them.

And Acer selling Vista Home Premium systems with 1GB of RAM is a joke. Vista MCE realistically requires 2GB, and any system with shared memory (all Acer laptops) definitely need 2GB if Aero is enabled.

Personally I would never install Vista on any system that doesn't have at least 4GB of RAM, a dual-core CPU, and a 512MB PCI-e video card.

Vista loves power and despite the trolls, *does* put it to better use than XP.

Score: 0

By roj

edited Apr 17, 2008 - 4:37 PM

Vista realistically requires 4Gb and at least a 3Ghz dual core to be useful - claims of 2Gb are a joke and a bad one. Even then it is markedly slower than XP, 32 or 64bit.

You want a fast Vista? Run Server 2008 with the desktop features enabled. But wait, you say,that's actually Vista with SP1 slipstrreamed in.

Why yes.

But it also has a CRAPLOAD of performance tuning done and a much smaller supported device footprint which make a LOT of difference. Sources inside M$ tell me that this performance tuning will eventually make its way down to Vista. I find that amusing in light of the fact that SP1 was just released - and that information came to me when I asked over the last few days. Clearly, the tuning hasn't been done yet (it was a design engineer I spoke to)and one has to wonder why - the OS so desperately needs it.

And even then it's slower than Server 2003 configured the same way.

So I'll stick to XP / XP64. XP64 gives me speed, power, rock solid stability - and NONE of the Vista disadvantages. I don't need the retroactive abortion known as Aero (flippy windows are pretty juvenile, especially in the face of Beryl), I've got ASIO so I don't need the new audio API and my AM2 6000+ with 4Gb (obviously Vista ready - just not wasted on it) flies.

It'll do until Windows 7 comes along.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 17, 2008 - 8:48 PM

I'd be really interested in hearing what problems you had on that system with Vista SP1(64bit) installed.

...ya know, if you could do it without using the flippy 3D bit. :p (I've had Vista installed for weeks and have used the "flippy 3D" bit a grand total of once)

Score: 0

By bigmac

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 9:04 AM

Well, i have a Athlon 64 3000+ CPU (not dual-core) with 2 GB of RAM and Vista x64 Business and with a modest Nvidia GeForce 8400GS PCIx video card with only 256 RAM, and Vista smokes on it.
Yes, Vista does put more power to better use, but 4 GB of RAM isn't that necessary. And it's somewhat foolish if you're running 32-bit Windows.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 9:10 AM

Ah, did I fail to mention the uselessness of the whole 32-bit thing?

I am sure Vista runs fin for ya. When you get 4GB in there and a faster dual core (you didn't specify) CPU, that's when it starts to kick XP's a** in performance. Never said it wouldn't be "good enough" on less horsepower. I was merely giving the reqs for the best experience.

Score: 0

By improvelence

edited Apr 14, 2008 - 2:38 PM

Agreed, although one of my laptops only has 2gb of ram and still fairs out nicely.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 3:42 PM

2GB being the absolute minimum Vista should ever be sold with.

Lets face it, it runs decent on 2GB, but less than that and it's a dog, more than that and it flies.

Score: 0

By roj

posted Apr 17, 2008 - 4:43 PM

Vista32 runs in 2Gb the way XP32 does in 512Mb. I find that particularly amusing in light of my previous posting.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 17, 2008 - 8:45 PM

Not sure which posting you are referring to, but you're dead on.

XP will run decently enough with *zero* crapware and one, maybe two apps open at 512MB. it really takes off after you hit the 1.5GB mark.

Vista will run decently on 2GB without crapware and only a few apps, but really takes off with 4GB.

Score: 0

By NULLedge

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 6:29 PM

they should call that the vista "ram tax"

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 11:47 PM

Call it whatever you want. 2GB of RAM is not an absurd amount, and it is not out of line with past jumps in OS driven upgrade reqs.

98 would run fine on 64MB of RAM. XP *required* double that to run, and realistically needed at least 8 times that amount (512MB) to run decently.

RAM is cheap. It's damn near a crime that these resellers are selling Windows systems with less. Just as it was prior to Vista.

Score: 0

By improvelence

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 9:17 AM

I love how people complain about Vista using too much ram when 4gb of ram nowadays is cheaper than 16mb way back when. And I agree, it is a crime to ship ANY pc with less than 4gb these days.

...or an onboard display adapter

Score: 0

By deminicus

posted Apr 17, 2008 - 3:22 PM

lol i still remember when it was such a big deal to spend like 300 bucks on 36 mb simms.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 11:48 AM

...or an onboard display adapter

Meh...

On brand-name PC's, I would tend to agree. For a BYO, I gladly went that route. For MCE it's excellent, and for systems that have a PCI-e X16 slot for a future upgrade (if you don't want to spend the extra $200 right away), it's decent option.

Score: 0

By UnionIT

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 11:05 AM

Vista/Server 2008 is a far superior OS to Windows XP no one who has done their research can dispute that, at least from a technical point of view. Fair enough it need more on the hardware front but so did XP over 2000 and 95 over 3.1. I have never really understood why people have been surprised by this. You can pickup a dual/quad core machine with 4GB RAM for peanuts now anyway and vista works fine with 1GB.

From the Enterprise side (which is where I am mainly concerned) Vista/2008 is just starting to come in to itls own. The new MSAT and Group policy extensions, which are also backward compatible to XP :-), are a HUGE improvement over XP/2003's offerings.

Vista is very much here to stay. I don't see the point is complaining about it now. From a business perspective which is the focus of this article, advising upgrades at the start of a new hardware cycle is hardly a new idea or particularly newsworthy!

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 10:20 AM

They could have done a better headline:

Vista = Windows ME 2.0

nuff said.

Score: 0

By improvelence

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 2:44 PM

Is it really enough said? I mean comparing vista to me is like comparing OSX to OS9.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 11:13 AM

Would have had about the same effect on the quality and quantity of comments....

Score: 0

By templarâ„¢

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 8:14 AM

Wow. It is so easy to increase page views nowadays. Just put anything Microsoft or anything Apple in the title and *boom*!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 10:01 AM

Ask a leading, loaded question to boot and you've got 200+ comments easy. I would love to see a hit counter on this page.

Talk about bringing home the bacon, eh?

Score: 0

By uberfly

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 6:40 AM

I write this (half) tongue-in-cheek, but just for fun, open Fonts in Vista's control panel, and select "Install New Font" from the File menu. Now do the same in Windows 3.1. It's the same friggin dialog interface. Now tell me Windows hasn't been a steadily-growing monster that's blossomed into it's current lethargic self. I mean they just keep piling on. It's time for some house cleaning and an end to the new crap like the heavy DRM they hang around our willing necks.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 11:46 AM

If it ain't broke, don't fix it?

Really...how much more functionality do you need for installing fonts? Do ya think they might have better fish to fry?

Love how people whine about how much changed in Vista...and then about what is and has been visually the same since WFW. Can you say Catch-22?

Score: 0

By deminicus

posted Apr 17, 2008 - 3:25 PM

windows 3.11, lol came on like 12 floppies.....lol... if it managed to work on my new box it would be so fast it would go back in time due to special relativity.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Apr 17, 2008 - 8:43 PM

I don't even think it would run, seriously. Timing issues and such.

It would be amusing though.

I may have to try throwing my WFW 3.11 CD in a VM, just for grins. Maybe even install win32 and see what happens.

Score: 0

By Morsel

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 3:07 PM

hear, hear ;-)

Score: 0

By GimieGimieGimie

edited Apr 14, 2008 - 3:39 AM

The only thing that pissed me off about Vista was it's inability to keep USB peripherals installed.

I bought a desktop replacement laptop and when its not on my lap, i plug a keyboard and mouse into it on a desk but unfortunately for me, Vista forgot that i've already installed these devices before and demands i install them every time i connect them back in or they don't work, has this been fixed in SP1 does anyone know?

Score: 0

By Storytellerofsci-fiction

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 9:11 AM

go over here and get this:
http://www.softwarepatch...ta-usb-error-patch.html

Service Pack 1 addresses a lot of Vista errors/problems so you should install it anyway there are a lot of "Roll ups", in it. It doesn't really add significant performance but it does add functionality /stability.
Good luck bye.

Score: 0

By eriqcook

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 12:04 AM

I don't care what anybody says, Vista is the next generation Windows Millenium Edition. It's a flawed "crossover" OS and Windows 7 will probably be a more reliable and faster OS--at least equally the same speed as Windows XP. Lol but seriously.

I'm know I'm right. Who agrees with that?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 1:19 PM

ME wasn't even a failure, all said. It sold well enough. Sure, we know it sucked due to memory leaks and the sheer inability to run it for more than a few hours without it bogging completely down (Something XP only partially fixed).

That said, Vista has none of those issues. It has been running on my home machine now for several weeks without a reboot and it has not slowed down at all, in fact, apps are loading faster than they were the first week.

Windows 7 will have the same or larger reqs than Vista. Guaranteed. You really need to stop fooling yourself.

Score: 0

By Morsel

edited Apr 17, 2008 - 3:23 PM

"....Windows 7 will have the same or larger reqs than Vista. Guaranteed...." humm, you don' know and no one knows that. And that I can guarantee!

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 17, 2008 - 8:42 PM

Don't be an idiot.

Name a single OS revision that has required *less* resources than it's predecessor.

Score: 0

By Morsel

edited Apr 18, 2008 - 12:15 AM

I do not appreciate being called an idiot. And to answer your question, what I am saying is that maybe it's time to change all that. Surely you can't deny that technology as significantly evolved over the passed few years. Look what Apple did with the iPhone; that thing is a work of art, packed with incredible features & it blows away the competition. Now imagine Microsoft (or any other company, for that matter) introducing an OS so revolutionary, stable, fast, secure, and requiring a quarter of the hardware power and energy of today's computer and still able to run apps at the same speed as a monster quad-core with 4 Gigs of ram! Imagine starting this thing up in a matter of 1 or 2 seconds? Ultra-portable, smart and powerful. You see, that is why I think there is so much bad press and dissatisfied Vista users out there; it is time for a change and I think now is the time for Microsoft to step up or someone else just might.

Score: 0

By bigmac

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 9:08 AM

I know you're wrong. Vista is not the next generation Millenium Edition; that was a piece of junk built on the 95/98 kernel. Vista is completely new from the ground up. And elaborate on how it's flawed? I work with it every day and have no problems at all.

Score: 0

By improvelence

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 2:46 PM

I have had a very pleasurable experience with Vista and I remember Windows ME. I strongly disagree.

Score: 0

By Christopher10000

posted Apr 13, 2008 - 9:36 PM

Vista isn't anywhere near being a lame duck. In fact, it is an awesome operating system that is more secure than XP.

It IS a lot more memory hungry than XP, but I can let that go considering that XP runs best with 4GB of memory, and with that amount, Vista runs quite close to as fast, if not FASTER in some aspects (i.e. it boots up 4 times as fast as XP Media Center Edition did on the same PC).

Billweh also has a point in that most of the 'bloat' of Microsoft's operating systems dates back to support for legacy systems. Drivers, drivers and more drivers, for printers that NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND is using anymore, old USB hubs, etc.

Score: 0

By lfmmoura

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 12:33 AM

The thing, my friend, is that Microsoft is asking for huge hardware upgrade, to do something other OSes can do with a much more modest configuration. I have an old Mac Cube (450Mhz + 512Mb of RAM) running Tiger just fine. In that config which, by the way, isn't as slow as one would expect a machine that old to be - I have most of the features MS is offering as an improvement for Vista. Does this mean OSX is light years ahead? Hardly. It simply shows that Windows has indeed become a dinosaur. MS needs some serious code revisioning and letting go of a ton of legacy code to get Windows back to being lightweight and effective. Gartner is right about that.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 8:46 AM

On further analysis this is where the credibility went down the drain: "I have an old Mac Cube (450Mhz + 512Mb of RAM) running Tiger just fine."

Score: 0

By Kompressor

posted Apr 13, 2008 - 9:23 PM

Right now is a good time for the Mac OS to move into the market.

Score: 0

By improvelence

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 2:40 PM

Never gonna happen until they give it up and allow (Legally) to be installed on non Apple Hardware.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 8:47 AM

It would certainly be insteresting if the machines would be more up to par on the hardware side and not just look pretty.

Score: 0

By Morsel

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 3:12 PM

Humm...did you look at the specs for the Mac Pro? 2X Quad Core Intel Xeon...I don't think that's a problem anymore.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 4:38 PM

I guess the have some nice 'desktop' systems but I don't do those except as intranet servers these days - and that will certainly not be a Mac.

Show me a decent Mac laptop that has the flexibility of an UltraBay (flip out the optical drive for another hard for speed and reliability) or UWXGA+ displays (two (2) notches up from the max Apple can do). I don't want to take my fingers off the keyboard while typing and don't buy laptops without a TrackPoint (or similar) device.

Unfortunately the Mac notebook failed the comparison on every level. With money being no limiting factor Win gives a choice of systems outside of uncle Steves limited consumer vision.

Score: 0

By ToeKneeC

posted Apr 13, 2008 - 10:36 PM

Only if Apple will unlock OSX to run on all Intel Machines. I'm not spending 1500 dollars on an Apple just for email, internet, IM, photos, movies and music.

Score: 0

By WeezulDK

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 10:24 AM

Apple will NEVER... I repeat.... NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER... unlock it's OS to be installed on any WinTel box.

Their touted "security" and "stability" would fly right out the (pardon the pun) window, and the whole Reality Distortion Field would "collapse under it's own weight".

Score: 0

By improvelence

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 2:42 PM

Umm, do you even know what you are talking about? The reason that OSX is so "secure" is because there are not enough people dissecting it yet.

It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the hardware.

It's also funny how they made the switch to Intel branded processors a good while ago. Are you aware of this.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Apr 15, 2008 - 3:16 PM

*laughs*

Re-read his post. The ability of OSX to run on *any* wintel hardware would effectivly boost it's market share to the point where it would then become a tasty target in the eyes of spammers and bot-net controllers.

That's what he meant.

Score: 0

By Stormprobe

posted Apr 13, 2008 - 9:22 PM

Windows Vista = Windows Millenium Edition (Me)

Since Windows 7 is also Vista/Me, there's not much to look forward to.

Long Live XP!

Score: 0

By ToeKneeC

posted Apr 13, 2008 - 10:37 PM

God help us if XP is it for the next 10 years.

Score: 0

By billweh

edited Apr 13, 2008 - 9:18 PM

I think that one of MS's problems is that they do try too hard to support legacy systems.

I understand that too, if I was a business and knew that I had to buy all brand new versions of my applications because they would cease to function under the new OS - it would make me think long and hard and be awefully hard to justify the expense. (Think thousands of PCs across an enterprise that need to be upgraded - not to mention the expense of actually doing the upgrade on each and every machine).

But - let's say MS tells everyone, OK - here's the new OS - any .NET apps from 1.1+ will run without having to recompile, if you are using MS Office - we will give you a FREE upgrade to the new version of Office for each license you currently own.

That *might* start getting it rolled out to some desktops and quite possibly new desktops.

But even still, there are so many internal apps that would still have to be run, and unless they could show that these apps would run in a Virtual machine, it could be the deal killer.

I remember when Windows 95 was released, we still had users that were using an old DOS based program to get to our VAX for accessing the publishing program that the company had been using for years. It would not run under Windows 95 no matter what.

So we had to stick an extra PC on each users desk that needed access to this app. Fortunately it wasn't many - maybe 20-30 people, but that's still an extra expense the company had to make for all of those people.

This is a big reason why the MAC still hasn't made as large a foothold as it could. Because there are too many apps in existence that would have to be re-written.

Sure - you could run parallels (an extra expense for EVERY user that needs it), not to mention that now you need to have a license for Windows XP (or whatever flavor of Windows you're using) on top of the expense of the MAC software.

I've been using Vista for about five months now and I think it's great. I've had no problems with it, everything but one app (and old command prompt based tool 4NT and it's an older version 5.x that I have) gives me problems when I try to pipe output to the List command. Other than that - Vista is stable and works just as advertised.

I got my wife a PC with Vista on it and each time she uses it, she finds another thing that she likes about the OS.

Our IT team likes it because it's easier to deploy and "lock down" so that they aren't bombarded with support problems because some person decided that the latest version of "crack-me-up game" was going to be a good thing to install on their work PC and it hosed have of their install.

Maybe it doesn't play games. I wouldn't know- I don't use my PC for playing games beyond things like Mahjongg or any of PopCap's games. But for what I do use it for; email, office 2007 and development work, it is fantastic.

Score: 0

By bigsexy022870

posted Apr 13, 2008 - 7:50 PM

If you have money buy a mac. Sure they cost a good deal more. And they can't play games. But they surf the web just fine.

If you don't wanna spend that much money goto walmart and buy a 500 pc. Cause it will surf the web just perfect.

You get what you pay for based apon what you wanna do. If you want a walmart pc to play Crisis then you're out of your mind. Try and play Crisis on a mac. LOL you can't even try cause they dont make it for a mac.

So yeah if you dont want Vista cause you don't wanna upgrade apperently you have your options. A good computer is a costly item. Surf the net on your windows 95 machine and stop b****in. If you want cutting edge games you need vista. Cause guess what, Microsoft isn't going back to XP. It's just life, you have to at some point move on. It's painfull at first buy you will get used to it. My Vista pc doesnt crash and doesnt slow down. It plays crisis in all it's glory. And if that doesnt matter to you stick with XP. Cause no one is holding a gun to your head saying you need to buy every new OS that comes out. If all i did was surf the net i most likely would still be useing windows 95. But i dont.

Score: 0

By reptile168

posted Apr 13, 2008 - 5:46 PM

Just get vista basic...

Score: 0

By Andreas2000

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 5:01 AM

*cough* vista basic.. isnt that the version that support only 8 Gb ram ?? :(

So if you eventually feel like uprading to 8 Gb it will be 8Gb minus your video ram, hdd caches, soundcard memory and other things.. stupid move of Ms to make this kind of limitation..

they should have never launched vista basic, I think it was only made for Ms to be able to claim vista compatible or vista ready to cheap computers with hardware not up to the vista requirements.

Score: 0

By preinterpost

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 8:50 AM

You sure sound like you know what you are talking about...

Score: 0

By uberfly

posted Apr 14, 2008 - 6:01 AM

All 32 bit versions of Windows only supports 4 Gig of RAM minus your Vid card memory. Get 64 bit OS if you want 8 Gigs.

Score: 0

By wtflolomg

edited Apr 13, 2008 - 3:19 PM

Why not a mac? I bought a used mac g5 for around $1000. Used my existing LCD monitor and keyboard/mouse combo. Never looked back. Heck, I get annoyed by my work (Vista) laptop now. I really do not want to use it. Sure it was a bit of a learning curve, but now that I have done it, I couldn't be happier. I just wish linux was as user friendly.

Heres my specs.
OSX 10.5
Dual 2.0 ghz G5
500 gig hdd
External 500 gig hdd
8.5 gigs ram

Hooked to a dell w2600 LCDTV with a BENQ 19 inch LCD as my secondary monitor.

Score: 0

By ToeKneeC

edited Apr 13, 2008 - 4:50 PM

Why not a mac? First they aren't Mac's anymore, they are Apple computers :) And if you are going to spend 1000, you can get a pretty kick a** pc with a gaming video card for that price (if not less). Learning curve from XP to Vista is much less then XP to OSX. Top that off, for the average user (like Mom), she picked up Vista in minutes (as really the colors are different and the start button doesn't say start). For IT troubleshooting, and setup, has changed.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Apr 13, 2008 - 6:05 PM

LOL!

Yeah, for $1000 you can get a "kick @ss" PC with an absolutely dynamite video card!

My @ss! ...Unless you are still playing Frogger!

But you see folks, what is really important here is that the teenagers here are reviewing Vista adoption on its ability to PLAY GAMES! - you know - the predominant activity that drives Enterprise adoption!!

If ONLY the debate was Windows versus Mac! If ONLY! Unfortunately its not for quite a few reasons! ...Predominantly Job's and Apple's elitist vision of their products that very adeptly avoids positioning the Mac as a successful enterprise product. Oh, it may gain traction, and it offers many strategic advantages - but it won't be because of an adept Apple strategy. It will be IN SPITE of Apple! Apple continues to be the Mac's biggest obstacle.

And for all the Mac lovers, liking the Mac is not enough of a reason for the Enterprise to adopt them. Before that will ever happen, Apple must get it's corporate head out of its posterior and provide meaningful Enterprise support. And unfortunately, Apple eschews that potential for Job's elitist (gee, what's Bono using) image that has utterly abandoned the "computer for the rest of us" legacy for a "computer for the beautiful people" image.

Apple, for all its cutesy commercials, still has NOT defused the bogus perception that the Mac "is not a PC" and "its more expensive and incompatible" image of 15 years ago! But why should they address this issue? Why indeed! Why should they actually educate the buying public - let alone the professional IT community that remains Still largely oblivious!

But in defense of the Mac; for the folks a few post ago who decry OSX - yeah, UNIX is SO lacking and unstable compared to Windows! NONSENSE! Spoken like a true Windows user who has never worked on other platforms. Yup, I have always heard that larger the UNIXes like AIX and HPUX and Solaris are unstable. ROFLMAO!

Here so many are oblivious to OSX's ability to natively talk and host the 64bit UNIX backend apps as well as to talk to (without terminal emulation!) and administer both Windows and Mac desktops - and ALL WITHOUT LICENSING COSTS!

But then, MOST here (Windows AND Mac users) are focused on whether their 'beasty' computer can play a game! Yup, we are sure focused on doing serious business here! LOL!

Unfortunately, neither camp here seems to have much of a grasp regarding what contributes to the real issues surrounding enterprise adoption. And even fewer are aware of the comparison and contrast between the two OS platforms in this regard.

And no one has addressed why FEW in the workplace need a dual or quad core platform to perform the lowly word processing, database query functions, and email perusing functions that most enterprise users require for a desktop - you know, those who are not Too busy playing games!

The enterprise hasn't had a reason to upgrade hardware in a long time based upon application demands! And now the hardware demands upgrading due to the resident OS?! The fact is, more would be gained in terms of admin, support, security and ROI by simply providing the majority of enterprise users with terminals.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Apr 13, 2008 - 10:00 PM

LOL!

Yeah, for $1000 you can get a "kick @ss" PC with an absolutely dynamite video card!

My @ss! ...Unless you are still playing Frogger!


Barebones with 2GB of RAM: $300

(2)250GB Sata HDD's: $150 (much lower if you shop online)

Ati 2900 HD XT: $300 if you shop online.

Total: $750. Use your existing monitor. Throw Vista Ultimate OEM on there for another $189 and you are *still* under $1000 with a PC that can easily handle Crysis, Oblivion, The Witcher, etc.

As for corporate adoption, it's pretty much complete BS when you figure the corporate foothold Windows 2000 still has. Corporations have always been and always will be the slowest to adopt.

You should know that.

Really.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Apr 14, 2008 - 2:28 AM

We already addressed the notion of generally available off the shelf computers - not the exceptional whitebox or home brew which is NOT the majority market - and that is what this article addresses! And fundamental to the success of Vista IS enterprise adoption!

And like it or not, enterprise purchases are a SIGNIFICANT share of the market! So if we are talking about the widespread adoption of an OS, the Enterprise is crucial to the discussion!

Whether you buy a machine to run your erudite GAME or your mom buys one for her recipes (or whatever cliche image of a mom we want to abuse here...)...the enterprise does not generally build their own whiteboxes and assume all in house service and support! SMBs certainly don't do this! (Although they may very well source them from a VAR who does assume such responsibility for whiteboxes that THEY outfit - and before anyone cites this, it not the same thing!)

So the exception of a minimally resourced homebrew box that barely squeaks in under ~$1000 for a marginal market has little to do with the larger market acceptance of the OS!

And that is exactly the point! And YOU should know that.

Bottomline, Vista requires that most who were happy with XP to upgrade their desktops and certainly their legacy laptops with a MAX 512 or 1MB RAM.

The enterprise, for all of their security demands, still finds it hard to justify the expense of replacing their desktops that are used primarily for low processing power word processing, database lookups and email - they simply do not need the enhanced hardware & processing power requirements simply to run some purty interface that adds little to productivity!

The problem is that the perceived improvements do not justify the costs associated with change management, application compliance testing, new hardware, re-training, support and peripheral issues that come with the magical new release.

And add to that, many individual users feel the same way.

And THAT is what is dragging Vista down - despite the amazingly rosy propaganda that MS would like all to believe.

MS problem is that they do NOT have a homogeneous market where most are at XP simply waiting to upgrade! Their critical problem is that they still have significant portions of their market scattered all through the various legacy OSes - and that prevents them from pushing their new Office cash cow as well! They have real fundamental market fragmentation problems.

And we can listen to everyone mention their little feature that they like or don't like - and there is no sense debating that with lots of folks lining up to say they like it or they don't - as such threads always seem to do.

The problem is that Vista has not presented a COMPELLING reason for all to upgrade - neither for home users nor for enterprise environments.

And THAT is the REAL problem!
And the fact that we are even debating this issue should indicate real problems.

And YOU should know that! (Actually, I think you do, but Why should that prevent you from posting to the contrary here!? ;-))

-----------------------

And besides, if I were to advise someone regarding an upgrade today, I would buy a Mac simply to have the advantage of of running BOTH UNIX based OSX AND Windows (and Linux if they choose) and anything else you would like! And someone could do this on a desktop MacPro with 2 quad-core XEONS for ~$2800.

And while that does not necessarily hurt Windows, it does offer another very viable option that presents potential problems for future MS specific SW product upgrades as there are simply more attractive and viable options.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Apr 14, 2008 - 10:00 AM

Bottomline, Vista requires that most who were happy with XP to upgrade their desktops and certainly their legacy laptops with a MAX 512 or 1MB RAM.

The enterprise, for all of their security demands, still finds it hard to justify the expense of replacing their desktops that are used primarily for low processing power word processing, database lookups and email - they simply do not need the enhanced hardware & processing power requirements simply to run some purty interface that adds little to productivity!


Good god...another one who thinks Vista is just a "purty interface".

..and here I thought you had some computer knowledge. Apparently it's just in relation to BSing about enterprise markets.

FYI: *all* of our computers in house have 2GB of RAM or more. We probably could have bought systems with integrated graphics cards that wouldn't support Aero, but we'd have had to work at it.

Point being: I could upgrade our company right *now* and the hardware would handle it. Our software would still glitch a bit, but we're working on that.

We're not the only one's.

I really don't know what companies you've worked for, but we and most companies we deal with replace their units every 3 to 5 years, with *current* hardware, just like we do.

The enterprise will move to Vista as they replace units. Some sooner than others, but they will. You can bet on it.

You can keep railing that Vista offers nothing, but those of us who've actually done the research and *ran* it know better. "Based on a server core", if you understand what that means, is plenty itself. Add to that the more stable driver model, "protected mode" browser, and getting the UI off the CPU and even you should start seeing benefits.

The "resource" issue is balls and you know it. Just because we haven't had to deal with OS-driven computer upgrades for 8 years doesn't mean it's not still the same necessary evil it was back in the WFW->95->98->XP days.

Score: 0

By internetworld7

posted Apr 13, 2008 - 6:42 PM

Your argument is irrational, illogical and emotional. You stated, "Apple continues to be the Mac's biggest obstacle." ROFL. Apparently you have absolutely no clue as to the massive gains that the Mac market share has experienced very recently do you? (Google is your friend) I guess all of this is just blind chance in-spite of Apple rather than BECAUSE of Apple right? LOL. Nice try though and next time write a book and not a post...

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Apr 14, 2008 - 3:00 AM

ROFLMAO!

Yup, Apple refuses to develop any semblance of a coherent enterprise solution despite producing the XServe. In fact, they say they have no plan to do so!

Apple tells the users what they want instead of listening to them!

Many of us NEED a true desktop replacement laptop to run VM images with multiple environments - yet Apple spends its time developing trendy thin laptops without Ethernet connectivity (regardless of how much you may like wireless!)

But Apple has completely avoided the high end power laptop environment - including graphics cards!

And support? Yup! When you void a warranty id you dare install a wireless card into the computer! Yup enterprises, don't dare touch them! And who in their right mind would buy ANY Apple memory, be it a hard drive upgrade or RAM? At those obscene prices!?!?!?! ROFLMAO! Not even a fanatic Mac user would! - you just hang onto the original RAM and HD in case there is a problem!

And I don't care if battery life is less than an hour or that it weighs 7 pounds - many NEED a robust desktop replacement that they can take with them - a luggable despite all the wimps for whom 7-8 pounds simply causes them to collapse in exhaustion.

Apple did this in the 90's by telling the scientific application folks that they were supposed to be using the Mac for desktop publishing.

The fact is that we have tried to use the Macs in academia and the enterprise - and Apple is their own worst enemy! Try calling Apple to get support at that level- just try!
And that is after Apple destroyed the VAR market of independent integrators who drove the adoption and integration of Apple into the scientific, SMB and enterprise markets - in fact Google the number of suits by them still pending against Apple! oops! those damned facts...

Bottomline, despite InforWorld's proselytiz