Finally a tech article that sees the current Vista-slam as it really is: simply a repeat of XP's entrance into the mainstream that most of us have forgotten long ago. Good article!

There's one flaw in your argument, on page 2, para 5: "Windows 2000 http://... was less than two years old when XP was released", whereas XP was five years old when Vista was release.

Another piece of information you neglect to point out is that XP is an incremental upgrade in the NT product line, but Vista is a whole new product line that comes with NT-workalike functionality. So it's perfectly understandable that professionals are holding off on this chance to completely hose their working environment.

Considering the source of the original article (ComputerWorld), the survey was most likely of 25 IT Managers for larger corporate installations, not 25 individual home users.

You probably knew that though. More important statistics that MS bashers hate to admit, 8.8% of corporate machines are on Vista 19 months after introduction vs 6.6% for XP 23 months after introduction, and the Gartner estimate that worldwide 28% of PC's will be running Vista by the end of 2008 (23 months after release) vs 22% running XP at the end of 2005 (26 months after release). These independent numbers confirm the statements from MS that Vista acceptance is ahead of XP's at the same point.

---

Thanks to Solar Wings for the special siggy.

I recently purchased a Gateway with Vista SP1. After I removed the bloatware and installed my software Vista behaved worse than the computer I previously owned with windows ME! In less than two months I have had to re-install using the Gateway recovery disks. The Vista recovery options to repair or restore with a backup of data are useless. The only option that works is a full factory install. I had to buy an extra drive to prevent the loss of my data on the original drive. I had fewer problems with windows ME.

I have set up 14 Vista machines, laptops and dekstops, of assorted brands, since it came out, I fazed our 3 older XP ones of mine and the rest for family and friends as they added extra computers to thier households and we haven't had any problems, not nearly as bad as when I started to introduce XP into the group only the daring wanted to go there but as things get more improved and take advantage of newer hardware buying new ever 3-5 yrs is nice. We do still have one running Me. Apparently part of the negitive aditude going into it may effect the results.

As for me I like Vista better, I don't have all the fluff on which I didn't in XP either but it seems to be more smooth on the newer wide screen LCD screens, it opens and closes things faster, I manage three web sites and some times have several programs going and it figures that out, I rip and burn my music, transfer it over to my iPod or MP3 player, I work with alot of digital pictures with GIMP, Irfanview, Picsa, Windows Photo Gallery, I always have Thunderbird, AOL AIM and Firefox open. I test assorted software to recommend to others. One of the desktops is an AOL and kids games machine and I have games from DOS days that are working fine, one fall out Dogz 4 - it was not a Vista issue but a video issue it wouldn't reconize the newer Nivida one, the kids like Dogz 5 better anyway. It seems to do compatibility mode better then XP did also.

I think my take on an operating system is if it will run my software that I need it to for work and play I am good to go.

This article uses the business market to gauge the overall success of Vista but one has to ask the question, how many of the installed base are actually upgrades and how many are simply new computers that came with Vista installed?
And for that matter what about the very important home market? I know several people whose only reason they have Vista is the fact it came with the new machine and if given a choice would rather roll back to XP.
One of the major motivations in the home market to upgrade to XP was the that game designers embraced it and in order to play the new games users HAD to upgrade. This has not been the case with Vista. The Games for Windows initiative could have driven this move but none of the game designers have coded Vista specific applications and until that happens Microsoft will have to make do with waiting for machine upgrades.

I dont know... it seems to me that there are an awful-lot of things that are factually-inaccurate, with many of this articles blithe-assertions...

First, I would hardly call "XP", "beloved". It is simply, clearly, superior to its mainstream (WIN32) predecessor "ME". And, much more accepted than "Vista" (will, probably, ever be). That simply represents the obvious market-reality, not, its place in consumers hearts.

And, "XP" has hardly become, "highly secure". Frankly, that one statement alone demonstrates what complete, and utter, BULLOX, this entire piece, truly is. "XP" (yes, and that includes "XP-SP2") is (very rightly, and clearly-demonstrably) still considered (by virtually every computer-security expert, and agency) to be the single worst, least secure, OS in mainstream use (...the term I hear most often is "Swiss-cheese"). In fact, many of "Vistas" (already) acknowledged "security flaws" are, in fact, actually hold-overs from "XPs" code-base and methodologies.

Next, is (as I have commented previously regarding the, at this point, painfully-obvious rhetorical-argument that keeps cropping-up amongst Microsoft-defenders, and was, predictably, a primary-component of this particular article)... the, bold-faced, assertion that "resistance" to "Vista" is nothing more than the run-of-the-mill resistance to "the new", which has been seen before. Yes, people, and industry, DO resist change (that is practically axiomatic)... however, most people in the industry HAVE acknowledged that, realistically, market-resistance to "Vista" HAS been far, far, more acute (and very measurable at the implementation-end)... hence the unending market-campaigns (by Microsoft)... and, the sudden appearance of such apparent, almost desperate, -apology- pieces (as the one that we are discussing at this very moment). Frankly, this is very similar to the bogus argument that we still keep seeing, that, anyone who points out the many negative-facts about, "Vista... ...simply hasnt actually used it" (another, intentionally-devious, and flagrantly-untrue, bit of marketing-rhetoric).

Next, as to the claims of better adoption-rates (than say... "XP")... The sales-numbers are actually quite hotly-disputed. Microsoft (and its small number of nearly-desperate defenders) claim one set of numbers (...which are primarily based upon little more than -paper- client-licenses sold; I.E. OEM-licenses, "software assurance", etc)... and NOT by any, actually demonstrate-able, count of, real-world, installations. Virtually everybody else is referring to "Vista" as a "market failure" (...or, even, as a, virtual, "train-wreck"). So, frankly, that information (and my own, personal, experience) would seem to indicate that "Vistas", alleged, -successful- "uptake" rate is little more than marketing-spin, fudging, and wishful thinking, on the part of a select-few.

This leaves Microsoft frantically pursuing its current goal of convincing consumers to accept "Vista" adoption (as a viable, even desirable), interim-choice... taking place between "XP" (which they most likely already have installed and running reasonably-well), and "Windows 7" (which is due out, shortly). So, this is hardly a soft-sell... based upon the, well-established, common-perceptions of the cost, and problems, associated with buying, adopting, and actually using, "Vista".

And... fluffy, marketing-pieces, aside... I just dont, realistically, see that happening (no matter how hard Microsoft pushes)... which is probably why Microsoft continues (to use "Windows updates") to make "XP" more "Vista-like" (I.E. intrusive, "Vista-friendly", and controlling).

...just my perspective.