[Wayfinder]

The Kansas City Star newspaper published a large article Sunday regarding Vista. It pointed out that not only is Vista not selling nearly as well as Micro$oft projected-- it's actually causing damage in other ways. The article pointed out that Apple sales are up 35%, while Micro$oft sales were far below projected levels. FTN Midwest Research reported that many companies are specifically requesting XP-based systems when purchasing new computers. I've got news for them, many home users are making the same request-- and can't find XP based computers on the market. According to a tech resource, Micro$oft has ordered all XP-based systems sold out and existing XP packages returned to them. As a consultant and software engineer with some 2+ decades of experience, I know my contacts, including highly experienced techs, are wiping Vista from their systems and re-installing XP.The newspaper article was coincidentally verified yesteday when I went to purchase a new computer system. I was considering whether my application required an upgrade from 1 gig to 3 gigs. The Sales Manager of the store (who noteably did NOT work on commission) told me that Vista is a memory hog, so going to at least 2 gigs might be recommended. I responded that the first thing I plan to do is wipe Vista from the system and install XP and he grinned. He replied, "I actually wanted to recommend that, but I'm not supposed to say such things."He went on to explain the many things he personally dislikes (actually, "hates" was the term) about Vista. But then he said something interesting. Rather than making his store some profit as they had hoped (selling Vista and selling new computer systems based on Vista), Vista had actually COST his store thousands of dollars in support issues and returned products. He said, "You would not believe the number of printers that customers returned because they couldn't get them to work with Vista". He also pointed out support costs in helping purchasers solve Vista problems. He mentioned that the same results have been reported by other stores throughout the area-- that Vista was costing retailers some major bucks and the retailers weren't happy about it.This was not a "guy with attitude" nor was he computer illiterate. He was problably one of the more knowledgeable and friendly sales people I have spoken with in a long time. He bent over backwards to help me find exactly the right system for my needs-- even recommending a system that was $200 less than another one-- because it met my personal needs better. Now, what can you say about a person with that kind of honesty... that he's just badmouthing Vista for the fun of it? I don't think so.You know, I'm not interested in busting Micro$oft's chops. What I'm interested in is a good, reliable OS that is compatible with existing software (especially Micro$oft's own software), that is available at a reasonable price and that doesn't gobble up my computer resources with unnecessasry eye-candy garbage like Aero. I'm interested in ONE version of Windows that does everything (rather than the current what... 8 or so?). And I'm interested in an OS that doesn't cost my retailer thousands of dollars in customer support-- so that my retailer can pass savings on to me when I get ready to by a new computer. When Micro$oft rushes a new product to market so quickly and with such secrecy that the major hardware manufacturers don't even have time to prepare driver updates-- that shows a total lack of concern on Micro$oft's part for both their business associates and the needs of Micro$oft customers.I'm not an Apple user nor particularly a Mac fan (considering the price of their systems). But I am a fan of their recent commercials-- they really smack Micro$oft upside the head. If ever Apple or Linux wanted to knock out Micro$oft's stranglehold on the market... now would be the time. All they would have to do is directly attack the flaws in Vista, point out their system doesn't have such flaws, and they might start catching people's attention. Apple's been doing a pretty good job of that... to the tune of a 35% increase. It might be possible that Micro$oft has gotten so big that they're completely out of touch with their customers and customer needs. When Vista starts costing their retailers significant profits, it might be time for Micro$oft to rethink its strategy.

[newsguygeorge]

Thanks for posting this information. I agree and it vindicates me on a post for which I was accused of having written the most slanted post ever. I wrote in another thread that Vista and the Microsoft Office 2007 are designed for puerile, gum-chewing, gum-popping teenies and 20-somethings who are more interested in thoughtless and undisciplined blogging, posting to MySpace and generally doing little substantive.None of those new products are for serious business. We have started scraping Vista off the two relatively new HP Pavilions and installing Office 2003. We pulled the trial versions of Office 2007 and replaced them with Office 2003 as well. Based on the advice of an incompetent consultant, we bought copies of Outlook 2007 and its junk. Were trying to figure out how to recoup our costs.This move to Vista and these new products are an insult to the intelligence of serious business people and the lack of options by HP, Microsoft and others (Dell, noted, but I wont deal with anyone crawling in bed with Wal-Mart).George Schwarz, publisher/editorThe Amarillo IndependentAmarillo, Texas

[TheNameless]

They're already talking about the next operating system... Obviously this was just an attempt to prove they can make a secure OS, since that's the only thing that's good about it (and it's not THAT secure anyway, but still, way better than XP)...

[rgreen4]

I will have to agree that Office 2007 with the new interface has a steep learning curve. While the upgrades from 97 to 2000 and 2003 were evolutionary, they all used the same file format. One could go from 97, to 2003, to 2000 and not really have any problems.Office 2007 has everything the others have and more, but it the ribbon is definitely different fro the old pull down menus. After a little while, I am actually beginning to like the newer versions better than the old. I definitely would not call them crap.As for Vista, the graphics are better, and I find things easier to set up.The vast majority of problems are related to drivers. If one goes back to 2001 when XP was new, the same statements were made. I held off updating to XP Pro from W2K for almost a year. This time, when I got the free upgrade, I installed it and found it far superior to XP Media Center that came preinstalled. Some corporate locations are not yet converting to Vista, but then some (including my employer) have never converted from Win2K to XP Pro. In our case, its because of a large number of proprietary in-house systems, IBM terminal emulations and other programs that are incompatible with XP (does that sound like deju vue?). On the other hand I also know of a major corporation that is rolling out Vista to all its locations, including may hundreds of remote locations.When change comes we can either get out of the way, get on the train or get run over.By the way, I am not a gum poping twenty something. I have enjoyed receiving Senior Citizens Discounts for a few years.

[Wayfinder]

[quote name='TheNameless']They're already talking about the next operating system... Obviously this was just an attempt to prove they can make a secure OS, since that's the only thing that's good about it (and it's not THAT secure anyway, but still, way better than XP)...Not sure I'd fully agree that it's way better than XP. As a tech I know wrote, there's nothing in Vista that many XP users didn't already have on their system. Most competent anti-virus anti-spyware programs already provided the security of Vista... without all the nagware.I'm going to answer Regreen here at the same time. People say Vista graphics are better. Matter of taste perhaps. To me, pretty eye-candy is not worth $160 to $400 and Vista is not significantly better in appearance than XP imho. As far as things being easier to set up... not in my experience. If they install at all, one has to mess with senseless "Administrator" prompts (on a single-user system) DRM and further nagware... IF the programs install at all. As far as "when change comes get out of the way or get run over"... that just depends. I remember three major companies that thought they had the market in their pocket. The first was Texas Instruments and their much ballyhooed release of the TI-99/4. Bleh. That was a major bust. The second was IBM themselves, the inventors of the PC, who thought they could never be toppled from the home computer market. Boink. The third was a company that was so big, so powerful, they thought they were bullet proof. That was AT&T.Micro$oft is known for failing to listen to the needs of its customers. They have a reputation for gouging their clients, and the reality of very buggy, unstable, and resource-hungry software. Upset with the Vista system can be found all over the net, in professional articles, and among techs everywhere.If it ever occurs to the majority of business users that the primary things they do on their Widnows systems can be performed just as well on Linux, and that they can eliminate $$$ to Micro$oft in the process... I mean, if you were a corporation with 1000 computers in your building, what would you do? I'd go with Linux in a flash and save my company a few tens of thousands of dollars in unnecessary OS expense.No matter how big a company gets, no matter how secure they THINK they are, sometimes that change you're talking about comes from the most unexpected quarters.