[[GSV]Myocardial]

If the product was leaps and bounds better than XP then why would MS have to trick anyone into upgrading to Vista? Shouldn't it just be the case that people move over.

At my old place of work they had just shelved the idea of moving over to Vista as XP did everything they needed. They understood it's workings and the cost of upgrading was just not worth the effort. They also didn't want to deal with mixed system support of getting new pc's with vista and having to support both. Also with rumours of a vista replacement turning up sometime around 2010 they felt that it would be more cost effective to wait and see what happens at that time and then re-assess their situation as I am sure alot of Corporates have done.

In a corporate environment I can see why people are resisting the change to vista when imo it really doesn't bring huge improvements. Projects are only now going to start considering vista since it has become more stable due to fixes and then only if the environment it is going into is going to ensure compatability. From what IT people have told me the budget for IT spend in corporates has been coming down and therefore new and exciting just isn't going to be taken up if the cost is greater than what has been proven to work. As i am reading in many of the publications about the current recession, I see the steady old fashioned business models are what is exciting investors at the moment and many of those don't involve switching IT product every time another company wants to make a bit more money in licensing out of you.

So if MS can't get the corp's on board, why do people on forums like hexus keep banging on about people who refuse to make the move? It's abit like the fanboyism of AMD Vs Intel or Nvidia Vs ATI arguments and imo totally pointless. I've read so many people who are arguing for vista at the moment, yet whenever people bring up relevant reasons not to upgrade, those reasons are either ignored or are just passed over and not commented on.

I at home currently use Vista Ultimate x64 with a pretty high spec machine, XP on 2 laptops and a small footprint machine (runs specific apps that I can't get on vista or linux), Gentoo based linux box, W2k8 server test machine for me to mess about with. Although I find Vista ok, there are many annoying features including UAC, it's more about the way they are implemented than what they actually do but you tend to just ignore alot of what pops up and click ok as if you spent the time to investigate you'd never actually get anything else done. I will probably give XP x64 a try and see how that compares to Vista on the main machine soon just for a bit of a play as I didn't initially bother installing it to test.

What it seems to me is that even though we get hardware progressing in leaps and bounds, software is just not doing the same. Why is a modern os using more resources than the previous version. Surely programming should be getting smarter and in many other industries relating to technology things are rapidly shinking but not software. Driver libraries etc are just bolted onto the product to make sure it's compatible with every permutation rather than a small piece of software that selectively picks the correct bits and keeps the base small and compact.

Personally I don't think vista will ever enjoy the same sucess as XP and think it will be superseeded by something new, built on it's back bone most likely and thats no bad thing as vista is a step in the right direction. But all this can be attributed to MS's decision to extend the production of Vista into 5 years to enabled them to bring out SP2 for XP. Is it going to be better for them to not produce a massive SP2 for vista and just release a new OS instead in the next permutation?