Windows Vista aligned with good management practice

An alternative explanation

Your conclusion that well-managed IT departments are quicker to adopt Vista because of the value it offers is not the only explanation for your data.

I would suggest that well-managed IT departments are more likely to tackle a challenging OS deployment because they are better equipped. Given equal motivation such organizations are more likely to schedule an earlier deployment than less well functioning departments.

Perhaps you should compare how much perceived value Vista provides to IT management in well-run and less-well-run organizations to validate your conclusion.

Unlike 98

When XP was introduced there was no immediate cut off date for 98 until a few years later. Everyone moved to XP because it was better. However there were a lot who stayed with 98 for a while and made the switch because of their own timing.

There was no activation with 98 and Microsoft could not force you to switch to XP.

But now with the activation that is with XP, when Microsoft says switch or else, we are at their mercy and this is scary. Vista is not a better OS. Not that it is DRM infected but that it is just an ok OS and not worth the added expense to upgrade all the hardware and retrain the personnel.

Like I felt about 98, when Microsoft is going to quit supporting XP, it should become public domain and free to everyone. This should be something that has been made into law by our government. Then Microsoft would have no choice but to make a better OS as so the masses would want to upgrade instead of being shoveled something like Vista which we will have NO CHOICE but to except.

The writing has been on the wall since 2001 but most folks did not realize the long term effect until now.

Microsoft has slickly positioned itself to shove a new OS down our throat even if it is good or in this case bad and then we the masses DO NOT have any choice about it.

This is a very BAD deal for the public at large. Something like this that has as big an effect on the public at large in the past would have been regulated like a utility company because of these same consiquences. When we had a government who passed laws for the good of the public has dropped the ball on this to allow 1 company to be able to have so much power over the public is a crying shame.

This goes for both parties....

Mike in Louisiana...

re: Unlike 98

>it should become public domain and free to everyone.

No No No.

I agree with your sentiment in most of the post but that is just insane.

What I did do when I realized there was going to be a cut off in windows XP and I would eventually have to go to Vista was buy a Mac. OS X not perfect but very nice.

Cheers,

Grant

Alternative interpretation

I agree with Mike Mike (I prefer to call you Minister, Minister - Bernard Woolley :-) )

that a well-organised shop is likely to be more adventurous about VIsta.

I recommend to the survey house that the same parties be asked in 12 months time about the results of their upgrade programs.

How many actually achieved the upgrade within their expected timeframe?

How did the results compare with their expectations?

How did the budget commitments compare with actual financial results?

And it would be very instructive to ask the users how different/same the old XP was compared with the new Vista.

Declaring my bias against MS and Vista generally, I am prepared to predict that reality will fall short of expectations, and the most likely upshot will be increased hardware requirements for users to enjoy all the snazzy "features" seen in the adverts, of which none are of any real business value in terms of getting their job done.

Alternative alternative interpretation

Re: "We did this recently with a _management level_ survey..."

Sooo... which part of the results lend themselves to reality then?

interesting

I work in small computer shopt in the UK and we are still to sell a Vista machine (apart from Laptop/Notebooks which we buy in), not because we are scared/unable to support it, but because our customers just don't want it.

The small businesses that we support cannot afford to have different OS's on their machines and are to small to benefit from the MS programs that allow "downgrade" rights.

This is how Vista will become the dominant OS in the next few years.

As for the "We did this recently with a _management level_ survey..." bit., we frequently go in to small companies and sort out the mess created by so called "IT Consultants" who clearly read a lot of this kind of thing but have no prtatical knowledge.

never a better survey

its always the same old survey

whats your adoption timeline for XP?

whats your adoption timeline for Vista?

how microsoft centric. almost advocating no alternative.

How about a 'What is your adoption timeline for Ubuntu?'

re: re: Unlike 98

>it should become public domain and free to everyone.

No No No.

Alright

Then Microsoft should not be allowed to issue an end of life cycle for XP. It must also continue to not only sell XP but also support it and keep up with the security updates as well.

This way they would have no choice but to make a better OS or we could stay with XP. At this date and time given these choices, Vista would Not survive because of it's own short comings as an OS as a whole.

Oh how different would Microsoft be if this were the case.

Mike in Louisiana

Something correlates - but is it what you think?

Maybe it could be that some companies have IT departments that have a good feel for the technology and the situation and manage to cope perfectly well without loads of management metrics.

Whereas other companies don't really understand the IT side so they go to seminars where they listen to management consultants telling them that you only know by measuring and this is "the best set of industry metrics(TM)". Those same PHBs^H^H^H^H managers that are now happy with their pretty pie charts also get invites to seminars where they are told that "now is the time to start planning your Vista roll-out".

I have used Vista and yeah it sucketh!

Title

" * A service oriented approach to IT service delivery exists

* Overall performance of the IT function is monitored formally

* The IT function is considered to be well tuned into the business

* There is a clear focus on the quality and efficiency of IT delivery "

Obviously spending a whole lot of money is the deciding factor in proveing all of these somewhat vaculous statements.

I must need a raise.

Imagine if the NHS wats to bring thier systems up to this spec, Oh wait they are, well no they aren't, after all thier systems well sorced severtal years ago.

Any more cash straped agencys we can gut?

Metrics, metrics

Those of us who do work in a service-oriented IT know that adoption of new technologies is how we justify our existence, especially in huge companies. All the groups and business units in our firm pay for our services as if we were a separate entity. Whether the new technology will offer significant improvements in productivity or reduced cost of ownership doesn't seem to influence these decisions. It's the newest technology and they want it and if we can't deliver they will find someone else who will (outsource). We already have pilot groups from each department peforming user acceptance testing on Vista and the plan is to have the whole firm on it in six months.

Maintenance of the existing infrastructure is unfortunately only a small portion of our budget. We keep the network from melting doesn't cut it anymore. Department heads come to us and dictate to us how they want a new product or service added and the timeframe. It is up to us to do all the research and testing and then come up a with a proposal with time and cost.

I miss the days of working in an IT department where we mandated policy.

Alternative explanation

You may be correct that organisation that formally review the service of their IT department are more likely to adopt Vista.

If this is so then I suggest it may be more to do with the IT department needing to please the oversight committee members than any need to provide direct business benefit.

IT oversight committees are often made up of non IT managers from across the business. These people are the target audience of every vendor's marketing department. They consequently have a better appreciation of what is 'hot' than that which is useful.

Vista, XP, MacOSX

"What I did do when I realized there was going to be a cut off in windows XP and I would eventually have to go to Vista was buy a Mac. OS X not perfect but very nice."

That might be a very nice option as an individual consumer, but trying to implement such a change at an organizational level would prove ineffective. Businesses would have to shell out not only a crapload of money (because, even if they are now cheapo-x86's they still cost a lot more than regular PCs), but they would have to spend zillions on migrating all their ERP/corporate software to MacOS.

For cost reasons, they would be hastier switching to Linux than MacOS, but then the same migration nightmare applies.

And organizations, large business and such are the ones that Microsoft really pimps out.

All the negative comments say nothing but "I'm an ignorant fool"

Ok lets go down the list of ignorant problems with the messages posted to this story.

One person here seems to think that Windows XP activation will force people to move to Vista.

... No, it won't. When the time comes to end support, Microsoft will still allow activation of existing XP licenses so that people reformatting their computers won't be shut out. There simply won't be any new licenses created / sold, and you won't be able to talk to MS about your problems with XP.

They can't stop you from using your existing XP licence after support ends anymore than GM or Ford can stop you from using your car after their legal requirement (in Canada) to support your car ends after 10 years. Your tin foil hat is tied on a bit tight today.

You will be able to go on using your old crappy hardware with your old crappy OS for as long as you want.

Funny how as soon as MS releases a new OS, everyone who hated XP with every fibre of their being suddenly can't pry themselves away from it.

When XP came out, there was the same problems with using old hardware, especially scanners and printers, there was the same lack of drivers for the first year, and the same group of whiners unwilling to let go of their old ways.

A couple years later, XP is like an ailing father on lifesupport, with the smart, eager, and better equiped kids standing around him ready and able to run the family, but you whiners won't put the poor old guy out of his misery. Pull the plug already, stop living in the past, and come into the future already!

Next ...

In this world of fast dropping prices and perpetual obsolesence of computer hardware, it won't take long at all (hmm say 12 months or less? Funny how its the same 12 months isn't it?) ... for the cost of Vista capable hardware to drop in price more than enough to cover any increased cost associated with buying Vista licenses over XP licenses.

Next ...

There is nowhere near the IT burden associated with Vista as everyone assumes, IT administration of a Vista machine will require the same or less effort than an XP machine, probably much less since it has so much better security. If you run 64bit Vista you are effectively immune to most of the security threats faced by XP.

IT departments that are on the ball are only waiting a year to allow Vista machines on their networks so that they themselves have time to become more familiar with the OS. IT departments that are claiming they will allow Vista in a few years are simply admitting that they don't have a clue about the new OS and don't want to deal with it.

Next ...

The supposed DRM infection, has way too many myths associated with it. Vista will not in anyway stop you from playing any media that you could play natively in windows XP.

If you are pirate / hacker scum with a library of stolen (non-HD) media, you will be fully able to carry on playing your old, low resolution, crappy quality, stolen movies and music. If you possess stolen HD content, simply convert it to another format. You can hack can't you? ... good! then you will still have HD quality, just not HD / Blueray format, and you can carry on being a pathetic criminal.

Vista adds the ability to natively play HD content, a new feature that XP did not natively support, it just happens to force you to abide by your legal responsibilities and respect the copyrights of HD media ... don't like being forced into this? You only have hacker and pirate scum of the world to blame. ... There'd be no police issuing speeding tickets if everyone driving followed their legal responsibility not to speed.

The DRM issue is utterly meaningless to IT departments and most companies. It will have no effect on migration to Vista ... you're supposed to be doing your damn job at your computer, not watching HD media content!

Next ...

Most companies big enough to have an IT department, and especially larger companies are not going to simply throw out all their existing computers and XP licenses, any company that throws money around like this has far bigger problems than the quality of their IT department.

They will replace them slowly over time as the computers become obsolete or as new employees are hired that require new computers. This makes the migration much cheaper and spreads the cost out. It also keeps the number of people using Vista small at first, allowing a good IT department to learn and adapt to any problems. Only a very small percentage of computers will be wiped and reformatted with Vista on their current hardware.

Vista works perfectly well on a network full of XP computers ... in fact with the new network protocol stacks it will work much better, I know mine sure does. Under XP I never saw anywhere near the speed limit of my cable internet ... I always see it now, 3 or 4 times faster downloads using the same hardware.

Next ...

Why should XP become public domain? MS owns it, they can do whatever the hell they want with it. They have the rights to the software. Dropping support for XP will not in anyway force you to stop using it on your computer, so who cares! If you want to be an ignorant luddite, be one, keep using old technology. Heck go find some really old hardware that can't run anything but DOS if you want. The public domain arguement is the arguement of cry-baby whiners.

MS could suddenly decide to drop their entire business model, drop all their current software, and switch to selling shoes and handbags if they want. It's their IP, their money, their stock capital. They can do what they want with it just like you do what you want with your own assets. No one forced you to use XP in the first place.

The arguement about MS not being allowed to have an end of life cycle on their software is just as stupid. Everyone wants the latest greatest thing with the newest features ... but no one is willing to cut their ties to the old technology that

holds them back.

Do you really think MS should be forced to fully support DOS, Windows 2, Windows 3, Windows 95, Windows 98 ... and a dozen other versions leaving them with no resources to develop new products? Just imagine how expensive a Vista license would be if you had to pay the wages of people supporting those useless old OS's!

Next ...

Let me answer the new improved corporate IT survey on behalf of everyone:

When do you intend to migrate to Ubuntu (or some other common linux distro)? .... NEVER!

The guy who wanted that question is utterly clueless. His idea of big corporate IT must consist of him and his three buddies writing love letters to each other with Open Office.

Of course he won't hear us screaming because his sound card isn't working. He can't fix his sound card because he's obsessed with trying to get is CD burner to work, and he's hopelessly lost in configuration windows which don't actually have any code behind them to configure his hardware!

Ya, He'll be getting lots of chargeable work done today for his company.

-ve comments

"Of course he won't hear us screaming because his sound card isn't working. He can't fix his sound card... etc"

Doesn't apply to any Linux distro I've used recently. Does apply, at least in part, to both Vista installations I've done...

A hark back to the olden days

Back in the 1980's IBM had a great range of mid range equipment. I'm sure other manufacturers did too.

Up until the release of the AS/400, every new machine was better, faster, cheaper and every OS release included stuff that was widely appreciated as giving worthwhile improvements over its former release.

The whole midrange market has more or less disappeared now but in the early years of the AS/400 the rot really set in. It cost a LOT more in hardware to run a program on an AS/400 which had been running on a S/36. The OS/400 had pretty bits but was slow,difficult and expensive compared to its predecessors.

In the end, the biggest sales of AS/400 units were probably to organisations who would have previously bought a small mainframe.

I'm feeling a little bit of deja-vu using my brand new laptop which takes up to 5 minutes to boot - depending on what useless(to me) processes MS have decided to fire up on next login. The interface is slow and clunky and I have to upgrade to get the same performance I could get with XP with under half the memory I have now.

Whats the most frustrating thing is that as a business user there is nothing that Vista offers me that I have not already got on my W2K3 Server and XP machines but I have to pay for an Upgrade because HP brought out a laptop with *only* 1 GB of memory.

I wonder if MS really do despise their customers. I guess this puts them in the same group as telcos and airlines.

Title

Brett Weaver makes the usual common mistake of uninformed windows users.

Vista is a new OS ... yet he believes that despite all it's new features, improved graphics, etc, that it should run the same or better on the same hardware as an OS designed 5+ years ago. He thinks it's wrong to have to upgrade to get good performance with new software. He's obviously never played video games.

If his laptop really does require 5 minutes to boot with Vista, then he really didn't have a clue when he picked out his laptop. If anything it's HP's fault for selling something claiming to run Vista which apparently can't ... and his fault for buying something to run Vista that apparently can't.

Then, as usual, he blames MS or the OS when he has control over whether or not his computer fires up with useless software running.

If he bought his laptop from a major retailer, no doubt it was stuffed with crap like that nasty 'I'm a Mac' commercial tells us. The benefit to him being a cheaper price, subsidized by the companies that paid to get their trial versions bundled on the laptop ... chances are he could have bought the same laptop from a smaller local retailer without the crap and simply paid more for it.

... but the rest of the world simply removes the crapware, and enjoys the benefit of the cheaper purchase price.

Ignorant fool

Ken, I'm sure your fun packed days on the MS helpdesk have rendered you an expert in corporate IT environments.

The bottom line is that most corporations are cost conscious, and care about productivity. Do they f*ck want to upgrade all their hardware is it doesn't save money or increase productivity.

What is the motivation for upgrading to Vista? First of all the cost of doing so is huge, just think of the money spent on integrating all your IT systems, and the time spent bug fixing all those proprietary applications your users run on their desktop. Large organisations have thousands and thousands of applications in use, I guarantee that any OS upgrade will break at least some of them be it Vista or Linux etc. Even service packs on XP are not unknown to break something, be it directly or the strain put on the infra by rebooting so many PC's.

Some corporations will look to move a small subsection of employees to Vista because of the hardware limits of XP, and the fact that under MS supported config XP will allocate half it's memory to the kernel - 2GB memory is not a lot for e.g. a Traders desktop, beyond these special cases what is Vista going to add to your organisation?

Now Linux, I use Linux exclusively on my laptop. I have to say that the driver support on Linux is far better than any version of windows. But you have to make the distinction between 'works out of the box' and actual availability of drivers. An OS like Ubuntu is more likely to support all your hardware without searching for any additional drivers than XP is. Unfortunately with Linux if the hardware doesn't work out of the box it is likely going to be more difficult to track down the drivers than if you were running e.g. XP. This is completely irrelevant in the IT world however, because you run standard hardware throughout your organisation, and if you wanted to run Linux you'd pick compatible hardware, just like you wouldn't buy a load of cheap P2's expecting to run Vista on them.

Sadly Linux is not going to find it's way into the largest organisations very soon. Forward thinking companies will begin to look at multiple platform support when they assess new applications, to free them from vendor tie in, but even with a conscious effort to do this it'll be years before their entire application portfolio is movable.

The other real blocker is retraining users who are used to XP (yeah I know this will apply to Vista too) and size of the organisation supporting the OS. As much as I want to see Linux on the desktop in my organisation Canonical is not a big enough vendor to support it. Yes they have the whole open source community supporting them but I want my bugs fixed now, as top priority, and their will be hundreds an hundreds of them...can they really handle this?

I think the bottom line is that organisations still have little choice but to move to Vista at some point. It won't add anything in terms of productivity, it'll be a pain in the arse to roll out, and it'll break a whole host of apps that nobody mentioned were important until they can't use them any more. But the upgrade has to be done so lets get it underway while MS still care about proving Vista, and to stop us wasting time and money on rolling out more apps that run on XP. Lets also kick ourselves that we let ourselves be put in this position and make sure we have choice when Vista + 1 is released.

It's not safer

I notice a clinker in their I have yet to see any safety

improvement in this new operating system over xp.

Granted if your organization is too stupid to switch

to something else then I guess you probably buy the

rest of this paid advertisement for MS doom.

Common Mistake

HI Ken and others,

I wouldn't call me completely uninformed, but I must admit that I'm not a gamer so any graphical improvements Vista has have missed me somehow. I am a windows developer of mobile and desktop business systems and have been for 16 years now...

I do run Ubuntu at home for my e-mail and web browsing on a 3Ghz 1GB desktop and it runs like a cut cat compared with XP and the graphics look very Vista like without the clunky movement (only 256MB graphc card too!).

While I admit I have not disabled Nortons on the Laptop yet I'm pretty sure I have not loaded anything apart from MS Visual Studio , SQL 2005 and .Net SDK etc.

One time, Vista itself went out on the net, downloaded fixes and rebooted all by itself! Wasn't that clever?

Because of the SQL2005 I have gone to 4GB on the laptop but as far as I can tell Vista just acts as a brake on a developer. Still its only version 1.0 and nobody installs that unless they have to.

But you are probably right in that there are probably lots of neat stuff in Vista - for someone. Its a pretty ill wind that blows nobody any good.

Re: Ignorant fool

I totally agree with you, Vista owns and every single bad thing ever written about it is a shameless lie.

Which reminds me, I need to install a driver for my HP Laserjet 1010:

http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/SoftwareIndex.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&prodNameId=306507&prodTypeId=18972&prodSeriesId=306505&swLang=8&taskId=135&swEnvOID=2093

Oh wait, no Vista support, and it's been 6 months...

How about trying to run an application or a game in OpenGL mode?

Oh wait, Microsoft nerfed it so badly that to the untrained eye it would almost seem that it's OpenGL sucking, not Vista.

I know, let's try something new, my built-in 56k modem:

Oh wait, Vista doesn't recognize it, and drivers aren't available...

Ah, unlucky examples really, I know, let's try OpenVPN:

Oh wait, Vista won't let you install it, claiming it is "incompatible", of course it would be, Open Source software is hardly ever compatible with anything.

That, and it's bad for business.

Yesterday I backed up 6000 files, totaling 490 megabytes, to another machine (and don't give me the "what connection you using? perhaps the other comp sucked? perhaps you were running other jobs" bit, I work in that field don't I? I'm perfectly capable of copying files.)

Vista took his sweet time copying them, finishing the job in a whooping 37 minutes.

Way to go, just the OS I wanted.

I have uninstalled Vista yesterday, and it feels like freedom.

Reinstalling XP is gonna be a pleasure, and at last I'll be able to use *what software I want* and *what hardware I want* (reread about my HP Laserjet 1010 under Vista about that one).

Vista is slower, doesn't bring anything new save for graphics, and best of all, every time it crashes it dumps a crash report in Appdata\Local .

I've had Vista for about 3 or 4 months, and it's eaten up 3gb of space merely with error reports.

Try opening Vista's Event Viewer, you'll be in for a long wait.

I don't need an OS that isn't capable of performing basic functions such as file copy/delete efficiently, or supporting hardware that is less than 2 years old.

No IT projects

I know I'm going to get stick for this one but please realise that in a good business there is no such thing ans an IT project, there are only business projects which are IT based. As such for the results of the survay to make any sence we would need to know if the rest of the managers in the business actually want vista. Just becaus the IT manager says everyone will have it in 6 months doesnt mean that 1 month in the rest of the business will say we dont want this give us back xp.

Oh Ken - I'm an ignorant fool"

<<<... No, it won't. When the time comes to end support, Microsoft will still allow

<<<activation of existing XP licenses so that people reformatting their computers

<<<won't be shut out. There simply won't be any new licenses created / sold,

<<<and you won't be able to talk to MS about your problems with XP

.

.

.

.

.

You see there lies the problem. Currently XP is available for Purchase and Support and is on only about 90% of the PC's worldwide.

Yes you will always be able to reformat and then jump through hoops to re-activate the current system, but if you replace a system, then the license is not transferable and you have to purchase a new license. Well if Micorosoft and only Microsoft decides NO, then what.

First, you misunderstand my love for Microsoft. I have been an authoirized system builder for 10 years and my sole business is based on the Microsoft model. What Microsoft is doing in the name of PIRACY is setting themselves up as the final judge and jury for forcing the masses from one OS to another whether it is better or not and unfortunatly Vista is not ready.

Second, I remember when 95 came out and how it was at midnight everyone was in line to purchase it. It was not because at that time because Microsoft said so - it was because it was a better OS with many many improvements. Did you see any long lines at midnight for Vista? Besides cosmetics, there is nothing that justifies the upgrade.

Vista has abosultly NOTHING that cannot be done in XP and there lies the problem and yet when they say switch or else, Who, What, Where can tell them - Wait a minute, Why.

Mike in Louisiana

DRM with HD-DVD and Vista

Ken, I think it is unfair to blame the pirates for the knee-jerk copy protection scheme of HD-DVD and Bluray.

What caused most people to 'stray' in the old days with DVDs, wasn't necessarily the need to pirate the discs' content, but (at least for me):

o circumvent the region lock (I want to *buy* DVDs when I'm abroad)

o be able to skip locked content (I don't want to watch a bunch of studio adverts before I get to the %"¤"! movie)

o ...and some people like to make backups of the DVDs their kids play with

So I do not hesitate a moment to put the big finger of blame on the industry. They could've shown a more user friendly face to begin with, and thus gained allies instead of enemies. Their choice. Their mistake. If I pirate a movie, I get what I want. If I buy the same movie, I get a lot of annoyances in addition to what I thought I was paying for. :( (BTW: I buy more movies than I have time to watch -- but I'm not a happy customer)

(DRM) will have no effect on migration to Vista

Tell that to those that try deleting a file and find that it takes exponentially longer (typically ten minutes or more) under Vista than under XP.

Deleting a file is not something that DRM should be looking at. If anything, DRM should actually make it faster since the information is being destroyed, so if it's a pirate/unlicensed copy, well it's going to be dumped, so where's the problem ?

The problem is that Vista's DRM is checking EVERY file, ALL the time. That takes a significant amount of resources that would be better spent calculating that spreadsheet or writing that memo. And with today's hardware abilities, if you manage to slow down typing a memo, you are using entirely too much CPU power.

Vista offers no improvements?

Mike,

First of all, you can take a default installation of Vista and make it fairly similar to XP so that most users would not be able to tell them apart. You can disable Aero, turn off UAC and throw Defender out the window, and presto: XP lives! Most of these settings (if not all) can be reached by setting group policies, so system admins can easily configure all their clients, if they want to...

True, Vista carries no revolutionary improvements over XP. It is not a huge upgrade like 98->XP. But after using Vista for a while, I don't want to go back. For one thing, the start menu is easier to use. It just works. I like the new explorer as well (easier to navigate the folder hierarchy from the address bar).

As for people lining up for W95 because it was a better OS... Wrong. There was already a superior OS out at that point (from MS): Windows NT 3.51. The problem was that nobody knew about it, and hardware requirements were a little steeper (but not much really). Eventually the old Windows 9x line died and NT was carried forward as 'XP'. Win95 was initially popular due to marketing and a slightly improved shell. Technically, W9x was a total disaster. Its major design goal was backward compatibility, and it shows. (W95 could even access devices that only provided 16-bit DOS device drivers... Benefit for some, huge opportunity for major instability for the rest of us -- I can crash any Win9x installation by typing a few commands at the command line)

So please leave W9x out of this discussion. Win98 should NOT become public domain but rather be buried sixty feet under the surface.

Personally I'm holding off on Vista deployment until Longhorn Server is released. I've found no easy way to host Vista drivers on our Win2003 print servers... (D'oh!)

Vista, new PCs, and the common user

You're all neglecting to mention the real travesty here.

Microsoft is forcing distributors to sell computers with Vista, correct? Businesses still have a choice thanks to a huge amount of indignant squawking, but the common user gets either Vista or nothing for a regular PC like all their friends use.

They purchase a PC with a specific set of hardware because their friends say it runs great and it isn't horribly expensive, and the vendors are continuing to sell hardware at the same price it was before Vista was released.

Joe User takes the computer home, boots it up with its whopping 1GB of RAM and a decent processor, expecting it to run nice and fast, *just like their friend's computer*.

Instead, it crawls along like a dying slug.

The user did not get the experience they paid for, because they didn't pay TWICE AS MUCH to get the SAME QUALITY EXPERIENCE. If their computer had 2GB of RAM and a high-end processor, then their computer *might* run as fast as their friend's computer with XP. And even then, their software that they purchased a year ago won't run, their printer they purchased two years ago has no drivers... Need I go on? Remember, this is after paying twice as much for hardware that will actually run Vista at a decent speed.

How is this fair to the consumer?

Simple answer: It isn't.

Businesses who are forced to go the Vista route will suffer the same issues as well - productivity will go down the tubes because the OS takes twice to three times as long to do anything, unless every single user that is forced to migrate to Vista receives a *high-end* computer instead of a mid-range workstation computer.

There are two people in my company who have moved to Vista. They both work in IT so they can fix their own problems, and they both still keep an XP computer right next to them in case things go south. Anyone else would be floundering, wasting the time of IT, et cetera.

Microsoft is being cruel for forcing Vista on everyone. Cruel to pocketbooks and cruel to whoever has to support the users.