Avoid Vista, keep XP and wait for Windows 7?
By Ruben Francia
Now that Microsoft has finally set a date for Windows 7 in 2010, and since Windows XP is proving to be more stable than Vista, it seems to make more sense to avoid Vista altogether, keep Windows XP, and just wait until Windows 7.
OS changes and upgrades are a major hassle for enterprises according to Reza Zarafshar, president and CEO of Advanced Computer Concepts. While this statement holds true, no one says that enterprises necessarily have to go through the hassle of adopting every change and upgrade. Avoiding some upgrades may be a better option. Let’s take the case of Vista.
Vista adoption rate prior to date-release disclosure of Windows 7
In a survey conducted by CDW Corporation of 753 IT decision makers on Vista adoption, 1% of respondents stated that their organizations had completed upgraded to Vista, 19% planned to upgrade within the next 12 months, 6% planned to upgrade beyond 12 months, 13% planned to start rolling out Vista next year, and about 48% had no firm plan to upgrade.
The survey shows that many enterprises are unsure about Vista. As IT managers consider issues like application compatibility, a lack of drivers, and the absence of a service pack, Vista adoption poses more challenges than any of its predecessor.
Is it worth moving to Vista?
Up until now, Vista doesn’t support a significant number of applications, including some that are critical to business operation. Many hardware manufacturers also haven’t yet released drivers that support Vista. And up until now enterprises are waiting for the release of a more stable Vista release (SP1) next year or in 2009 before implementing Vista.
The resolution of application compatibility and driver issues to Vista may come too late. While application compatibility and driver issues should not be a big concern in one or two years from now, Vista deployment by that time may be less beneficial, especially if the enterprise has found no compelling reason to move over to Vista, especially if Windows 7 is on the horizon.
Another good reason for not jumping to Vista is the unclear benefits it offers to the enterprises. Vista maybe a nice new operating system with good features but overall it is not proving to be a “demand creator†for PC buyer, says Reza Zarafshar.
Is Windows XP worth holding on?
During the past six months there have been many reports about Vista’s failure to win over XP users. According to a NetApplications report in June Windows XP has a market share of 84.33%, while Vista has a market share 4.52 percent. This is strong indication that Windows XP users ate happy with what they’ve got.
The failure of Vista to win over XP users caused Microsoft to adjust its 2008 fiscal year sales forecast for its operating systems by increasing XP by nearly 50% and decreasing Vista by about 8 percent. The adjustments simply indicate that XP is still more popular than Microsoft expected it would be after the release of Vista.
In April, Dell stepped back from exclusively offering Vista machines and said: “We heard you loud and clear on bringing the Windows XP option back to our Dell consumer PC offeringsâ€.
Advanced Computer Concepts, a solution provider, has similar experience with Dell by saying: “We have customers ordering large numbers of brand new laptops and desktops and specifically saying they don’t want Vista.â€
And more recently, Acer president Gianfranco Lanci went even further by saying “The whole industry is disappointed with Windows Vista.”
Is Windows 7 worth waiting for?
At the time of writing, Microsoft has shared very little information about Windows 7. The coming OS will have 32-bit and 64-bit versions with different flavors targeting home and business customers. The company is also considering a subscription-based concept.
It’s expected that Windows 7 will be released within three years time. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has vowed that Microsoft will never take so long to develop a new version of Windows as it did to produce Vista.
Since Windows Vista was such a big disappointment, you’d think that Microsoft might try harder to make Windows 7 a little more compelling. So my advice is to save yourself the hassle of upgrading, and wait to see whether Windows 7 offers something that might actually be useful.
If Windows 7 turns to be another disappointment, then it may be that Microsoft will have to rethink its approach to operating systems.
Related:
Entry was posted
on Friday, July 27th, 2007 at 6:22 am
under 
Print This Post
Read more entries by Ruben Francia.
July 27th, 2007
In MY opinion, Vista is the pits. Some people like Vista, and I have nothing against those people–hey, if Vista’s fine for them, no problem. I just don’t like it personally.
Unfortunately, in Vista, Microsoft put what appeals to some people but not to others–looks. Better detailed-items, flip-3D, DirectX 10, who doesn’t know that these things come with Vista? What it doesn’t offer is stuff that people need. I’m sure that if Microsoft did a lot of planning, they could sell an operating system with NEW tools that people NEED–after all, they sure are finding lots of ways to compete with other companies in things like music playing, web-development, compression utilities, flash-players (for those who have heard of Expression Studio), etc. (Vista actually has Database issues– : | )
The thing is, Microsoft is selling something with looks and security, but for the average user, it provides nothing new that could be useful, and if people stopped paying money for “junk†(less important things that guzzle up ram) and stuck with their old yet working PC, maybe Microsoft would start thinking about how to improve PCs because of lack of customers.
My opinion? Stick with your XP , Me, 98 or 95 computer. I have a 2006 one with XP, and it has everything I need and even want. I also have a Vista computer, but it takes up so much memory that I can’t even change the Office Assistant in Microsoft Office!
Like I said, I have nothing against people who like Vista, but I feel that Microsoft could be doing more with their products.
July 27th, 2007
And you’ve owned how many computers? How can you even suggest people stick with Windows ME which is by FAR, THE WORST operating system in the history of operating systems.
I’d say most people are fine with Windows XP or 2000 and no, not 98 or 95. Just what are you going to get done in 98 or 95. Do you have any idea how many programs WON’T run in those operating systems. Everything made today is for 2000/XP or Vista.
As for Vista being slow, it’s not slow not if you have the proper hardware.
Agreed, it’s not ready for the average user but being an “early adopter” and windows “power user” I like it. I like the visual effects and it’s responsive with 2GB of DDR memory, Geforce 8800GTS and a dual core Opteron 180 processor.
Like I said, you need the hardware to run it and you need to make sure the hardware you are using at least “works with Vista” though it doesn’t need to be Vista “certified.”
Try running PhotoShop CS on Windows 98 and see how far you get.
July 27th, 2007
You know, I remember this same EXACT kind of article when XP came out. “The only thing new in XP is just fluff… a fancy interface”. And you know what, XP is one heck of a stable OS. So stable that I’d pit it head to head with any Linux distro.
That said, I’ve been testing Vista to see if it is viable for us to begin allowing it on new PCs at work (we have about 1400 PCs that we manage) and it definitely does have quirks. A lot of Microsoft apps that we use in IT don’t work. I actually have another PC with XP on it with about a 1/2 dozen apps so I can still do my job. It behaves oddly with other Microsoft products from a web perspective like SharePoint. All common things in an enterprise that should have been tested in the LONG beta cycle that Vista had. Its also slow unless you have the absolute latest in hardware. I’ve got a 3 year old P4 3.2Ghz with 1.5GB of ram and it is usable but some tasks it can be slow at. I will not be recommending it until SP1 comes out (if that fixes these issues).
The only thing I can see that will be a must have for making the case for Vista is on the home front when DX10 games start arriving. If you are a serious gamer, you are going to flip when you see these! Again, you’ll need the latest hardware (most serious gamers keep up good hardware) but it will definiately be the one thing that sets it apart from XP. Other than *that* though, I won’t be giving up my 64bit XP at home anytime soon.
July 27th, 2007
I would not dare compare XP to a Linux distro. There are far too many things you can do on XP that will crash it that just won’t affect Linux.
As for Vista, I find it far more stable than XP. I can run many programs that would blue screen XP which don’t cause any serious issues. Vista earns my respect there.
Unfortunately, as the first post says, it’s way too slow, even with the latest patches (I also have an Opteron 180 and 2 GB of RAM) and most hardware is not supported or not supported well. Makes it tough to do much of anything even if the OS itself is stable.
Maybe in a year or so when the new drivers come out and some optimization tricks come out, it’ll be better.
July 29th, 2007
George, name me one thing you can do on XP that will crash it? Unless you have sub-standard cheap hardware with drivers written by a 12 year old, XP is rock solid. I for one, can crash Linux far easier than XP….namely because many drivers for Linux are written as an afterthought.
July 30th, 2007
Yeeaaaah. Let’s read your premise. Vista sucks, so wait for Windows 7, which might suck too? No wonder Mac and Linux are getting so much more attention — even the Windows brats can’t put a good spin on this. Let’s face it. Sometimes computers die. Hard drives crash. Whatever. And what then? There’s no waiting for a couple years without a computer, someone’s going to go out and buy something else. And unless they’re scraping an old XP machine off eBay or their neighbor’s garage sale, they’re going out and purchasing a new machine. And if it’s not a new machine with a Microsoft OS… hello Mac and Linux.
July 31st, 2007
[…] life without OutlookOne Click Activation Crack for VistaVista and XP get virtual 3D desktop cubeAvoid Vista, keep XP and wait for Windows 7?Make Microsoft Office 2003 compatible with Office 2007 […]
August 3rd, 2007
This information and comments were very timely for me. My 6 year old computer just crashed (it had XP) and I am shopping for a new one. My local computer retailer advised me not to load Vista due to incompatiblity issues and its basic lack of stability. He strongly advised me to stick with XP. So, that is what I will do. Again, thanks for the info and the comments.
August 3rd, 2007
For Jonathan: (You are correct about Windows Milinneium, by the way)
I’ve owned about seven computers, and it all comes to the same question: How many NEW programs do you even need? Sure, some BIG companies need the newest software they can get. But most people? Essh! New software (that can only run on Vista or XP) can have a lot of trash and unnecessary stuff for, say, $200-$300?
I’m not trying to say that 95 and 98 absoultely rock, but most people who aren’t big gamers or heavy office workers need simply Microsoft Office 2000, Direct X 8, Paint Shop 7, etc. –NOT THE NEWEST. My point is, some people use 98 or 95 at home and do every little thing they need done. So if they are doing fine with the software they need with all the features they need, maybe they should stick with it? (The only reason I upgraded from Win 98 was because my motherboard died or I got a virus, and I had to get a new computer. It did EVERYTHING I needed done.)
August 15th, 2007
It is very interesting to read about the XP vs. Vista discussions here.
I’ve a question for you. Are you running as an Administrator or as a limited user (standard user) on your XP boxes?
If you’re running as a standard user and have no application compatibility or usability issues, then congratulations; do stay on XP as it is working for you.
If you’re running as an Administrator on XP, then you’ve problems and you don’t know it. Your systems are most likely infested with viruses, worms, and probably rootkits and not matter what kind of anti-virus or malware you’re running, I submit to you that you can’t be 100% sure that your systems have not been compromised.
Windows Vista is not causing application compatibility issues… the applications that don’t follow the least-privileges best-practices do! If you don’t believe this, log back into your XP computer with a limited user and try to run your line-of-business applications. You’ll notice that your applications will not work correctly at all. Furthermore, XP does not work correctly in many instances when you use the ‘RunAs’ feature to run a single process as an Admin when logged in as a standard user.
All of those who claim XP is ‘better’ or more ’stable’ than Vista should consider Vista’s other security features such as UIPI, Session 0 Isolation, WRP, WFP (Windows Filtering Platform) and then take a hard look at their XP system again.
I hope this helps clarify the discussions here, because SP2 for XP was trying to put in place all the security principles that Vista was built on, from grounds up.
I have been using Vista ever since Beta 1 and will never go back to XP. Vista is a far more advanced and better OS than XP SP2 could ever be. Remember, poorly designed applications cause application compatibility issues on Vista. If you install an application that was certified (logoed) for XP SP2, you can install it on Vista and you’re guaranteed not to have any issues on Vista. Why? Because with the XP SP2 logoed applications, the application has been tested for all the security and usability principles and it does adhere to the least-privileges principles of computing.
Migrate to Vista and start computing in the new age! Windows 7 will most definitely build on the principles of Windows Vista.
Cheers,
Newsha
http://newmako.blogspot.com
August 26th, 2007
XP is for users who want good interface and stability, not for running imp. business applications,like servers….
Vista for users who have good hardware configuration and want good look n feel…at
the cost of stability and compatibility at least in near future…
Unix(eg. solaris) for running serious business server kind of applications … good support and stability.. These users mostly will be using xp for normal applications like word,excel,songs and for connecting to remote unix servers for development purpose……..
Linux(free version of unix eg. Red Hat) for business users who want a bit of good interface at less cost but willing to compromise a bit on stability,support.
End result , XP best for normal users
Linux and unix for developers of server based applications….