Ignore Vista Until 2008

Blakey Rat writes "According to Gartner in a research note entitled 'Ten reasons you should and shouldn't care about Microsoft's Windows Vista', businesses should wait until 2008 before installing Windows Vista, or 'pursue a strategy of managed diversity' by only bringing in new machines with Windows Vista and not upgrading existing computers. Although acknowledging the security benefits of upgrading, they explain in the report that most of the security-related benefits that come with Vista are available today through third-party software products."

The reason not to upgrade is...

[Sinryc]

if its not broke, don't fix it.

So....

[Doc Squidly]

...is this more about the quality of Microsoft's current offerings or their inability to make any advances that would provide value to the business customer?

Or...Does a business really need a 3-D desktop?

Re:The reason not to upgrade is...

[BigDork1001]

if its not broke, don't fix it.

My NES still works but I bought a SNES. That still worked but I bought a 64 and then a GC. My X-Box still works and someday long after launch I'll get a 360. They weren't broke but I upgraded.

2000 worked pretty well for the most part(not too broken) but many people are running XP these days. XP isn't too broken but in the future many people will be using Vista. Improvements in functionality, security, and ease of use will eventually lead me to Vista. I don't plan on diving in the day it's released or anything but eventuall I will buy it and install it on my machines.

Ten reasons??

[d3ac0n]

Heck. I can give you ONE reason not to move to Vista, and it's all you need.

Trusted Computing.

'nuff said.

Re:Summary: Too Little, Too Late

[dslauson]

"Seems as if Gartner, the analyst who was deeply in love with Microsoft in the nineties, has turned sour on them lately."

Keep in mind that he's still recommending Windows. He's not so soft on it that he's tell you to install Linux or BSD.

To me, it sounds like the guy's not really trying to rip on Windows, so much as he's offering sound business advice. Right? I mean, what's the benefit of rushing out and buying the latest version when the current one coupled with the third party software that you probably already have installed, is perfectly adequate?

Re:Ten reasons??

[dumeinst]

aye aye.
People who don't know what this really implies are going to be dumbfounded when they find out

Re:The reason not to upgrade is...

[MoogMan]

(Unfortunately) this is also the same reasoning for not transitioning over to Linux

Re:So....

[Bassman59]

"Well if the differences in Office 12 require Vista to have all the new UI things then YES. The new features in Office 12 will mean a huge increase in productivity."

Phooey. Most users don't bother with 90% of the features of the current Office.

Re:Amazing

[smartin]

Exactly, I wish I had mod points to mod you up. Each new generation of Microsoft operating system is suppose to fix the problems of the past, but each new generation continues to have them. The reason of course is that they simply can't throw the old crap away because they want backwards compatibility. M$ should really take a lesson from Apple when they switched to OS X. Toss the old code base and start new with a tried and true Unix kernel. Provide an emulation environment if you have to but toss it all out and go with what is known to work.

You need 10 reasons?

[vertinox]

I only need 4 reasons not to upgrade.

1. OS X
2. Ubuntu
3. Win2000
4. $250

"Upgrade" boycott doesn't ignore Vista

[CDPatten]

A big problem with his premise is no companies would be able to purchase a computer from Dell, HP, IBM, etc. until 2008. As soon as Vista is released they will stop offering XP (almost immediately), and start offering only Vista. It's the way of the world. You can erase vista and install XP, but that would be foolish, not to mention they got a license for Vista with the purchase of the machine.

I'm also disagree with his reasons, but I'm not going to take the "flame-bait" ;)

Windows ME all over again?

[StarvingSE]

It sounds like vista is to xp, as ME was to win98. I don't see anything revolutionary in it that is worth spending money upgrading. The article hits it right on the spot I think. It doens't seem to improve the core OS, it just seems like they are adding/fixing other software like IE7 and Windows Defender. Most people I know have moved to firefox to fix their browser security issues and have at least a few anti-spyware solutions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like they could even break software compatibility with XP users since they are so similar.

Re:The Microsoft Solution...

[Jason Earl]

Sure, and while you are waiting for Windows Vista to actually ship you can just run your business with some paper and a stack of pencils.

Gartner has this one right. Unless you are willing to eschew using computers altogether you have to invest in the third-party products now. When Vista does ship you could toss that investment out the Window (ha ha) and pay extra to get Windows Vista, or you can simply hold off on purchasing Windows Vista until purchasing new machines. Considering the number of businesses that are still running Windows 2000, I expect that Windows XP should be Microsoft's most popular OS for some time to come.

Re:The reason not to upgrade is...

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Yes. But would you have gotten an Xbox if it still only ran the same games the NES had? Because that's a more accurate analogy than what you used.

I would say that Microsoft ran out of ideas years ago, but in their case, it's more like they couldn't find any more to steal.

Re:So....

[NanoGator]

"Or...Does a business really need a 3-D desktop?"

Heh. "Does a business really need color monitors, sound cards, 3D acellerators, and DVD burners?"

Considering that this 3D desktop paves the way for 300 DPI LCD screens down the road, the answer is most definitely yes. The catch is that it may not be an instant hit.

Re:This is the LAST Windows you'll ever buy!!

[slashname3]

Actually isn't that the direction Microsoft is taking their licensing? They want an annual fee for each copy out there, not a one time upfront charge. So yes they want you to have to pay each year in order to run your computer. Plus that gets them in a position to have a recuring revenue stream they can count on. They can only sell so many new copies of an OS each year. With the number of computers that are out there now much larger than new systems being sold they want to get paid for all of those systems each and every year.

Keep looking for Microsoft to try to reinvent themselves. The gravy train is ending and they need to find new ways to get money from people.

Re:"Upgrade" boycott doesn't ignore Vista

[Whatchamacallit]

Big companies have corporate site licenses for Windows without Product Activation, etc. We install WinXP or Win2k from the network. We boot a new machine out of the box with a networkable boot cd and kick off a ghost image onto the hardware. The only people actually installing Windows onto hardware the manual way are engineers putting together a new ghost image. The boxes coming from HP, IBM, etc. are never even booted into the OS that comes with them before they are wiped out. The engineers will probably play around with Vista but it is unlikely they will approve it for rollout to 12,000+ PC's until at least the first service pack.

Re:Ten reasons??

[Proc6]

"The ultimate goal is to lock out cheap independent software (especially, but not limited to, F/OSS)..."

I never understand comments like these. How exactly does DRM do that? How does DRM "force" a developer to charge a whole lot of money? If DRM were in place today and I was a freeware developer, what prevents me from just issuing a DRM key (or whatever the process is) and making my terms of agreement "anyone who requests one gets one and I charge nothing". Or does Microsoft beat down your door and say "NO, YOU HAVE TO CHARGE $500 PER USER!!11!!"

If you think that Microsoft is somehow going to force all software developers to pay some rediculous per application fee, thus forcing them all to charge for their app, thus whittling down the market to like 3 major apps, your tinfoil hat is on too tight.

If there's one thing Bill Gates knows its that his fortune was built on Windows having zillions of developers covering all possible realms of software from Diet Calculators to 3D Animation. Maybe the phrase "Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!" rings a bell. Developers have to eat too, and once all of them can't afford to turn a profit off writing code for Windows unless they're one of the few working at Symantec or Microsoft or Adobe, they'll find a new career or OS to write for.

About the last scenario Microsoft wants is ONLY the major software developers like Adobe and Macromedia left standing, because they consistantly port their applications to OSX. If you were "forced" to quit using your $50 Paint Shop Pro, and replace it with $500 Photoshop instead, well then theres a 50/50 chance you may just become an OSX customer.

Microsoft may be corporate-evil, but they definately believe in small developer shops and know legions of developers and all their varying business models from freeware to $5,000/user licenses are the foundation of the Microsoft machine.

Re:The reason not to upgrade is...

[Jeff Hornby]

But most people aren't interested in knowing more about computers and pcs in general. They just want things to work. How much do you know about an internal combustion engine? If somebody told you that you should buy a car that required you to spend a few hours every week being a grease monkey, would the car be a great tool because you felt you accomplished something or just a pain in the ass when you are late for an important meeting and need to do a two hour overhaul on the engine yourself to get there?

One thing regarding ReactOS...

[Spy der Mann]

API features are implemented linearly. But the number of programs supported by ReactOS will increase exponentially. Perhaps in a year we might have a usable Beta of ReactOS.

Re:Ten reasons??

[RoLi]

If DRM were in place today and I was a freeware developer, what prevents me from just issuing a DRM key (or whatever the process is) and making my terms of agreement "anyone who requests one gets one and I charge nothing".

The ultimate goal is to create a DRM-structure of Microsoft-"approved" software, ie just like drivers. And a freeware developer can't afford that.

Of course you will be able to run not-approved software (with scary warning dialogs) at first, but the final goal is to create a closed system that cannot run "bad" software.

Re:The reason not to upgrade is...

[Anonymous Coward]

WTfF