Vista at Risk of Being Bypassed by Businesses

narramissic writes "With Windows 7 due in late 2009 or 2010, many businesses may choose to wait it out rather than make the switch to Vista. According to some analysts, Vista uptake at this point really depends on how good Vista SP1 (due in Q1, 2008) is. If it doesn't smooth over all the problems, companies are much more likely to stick with XP. And that holds especially true for those businesses that follow the every-other-release rule." Note for Microsoft: Allow us to natively disable trackpads.

Here is what Cybermen would say

[The Seventh Sign]

Here is what the cybermen would say about windows Vista.

DEELEEEEEEEETE!

TSS

Re:and then....

[Technician]

Really? I just picked up Windows XP last month at work.

Check the copyright date, release date, and the expiration date. It has been polished a few times and put back on the shelf so you can still buy a few "New" copies.

I know, don't tell me. *****WHOSH*****

Re:and then....

[ricebowl]

The Vista [laptop] interrupts business presentations.

Yeah, but this is Slashdot, and it's a Microsoft OS. You can't just focus on the stuff it gets right; we want to hear about the cons too...

Re:WIndows 7 - better?

[DAldredge]

Next year has been the "Year of the Non-Windows" desktop since before I signed up for a /. account.

Re:and then....

[cp.tar]

Vista is bad for business.

I sense a Ferengi joke in here somewhere...

Re:What is so bad about Vista?

[Macthorpe]

I think you missed the point. I can google "Flamingo" and "problems" and get over a million results - does this mean a million people are having problems with their flamingo?

Re:and then....

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

At times like this, I am reminded of the 666th rule of acquisition: never choose Microsoft!

Re:What is so bad about Vista?

[Macthorpe]

User accounts controls have no way to add program users use everyday.

Your terrible grammar makes this nearly impossible to answer - I assume you mean that you can't set UAC to allow you to run something as admin permanently. Why something would need admin access every single day I'm not sure (I'm going to guess a poorly written program) - but if you're making system changes every single day and you're the admin, then you can turn UAC off just for yourself and nobody else.

Windows defender doesn't care if yor using another virus guard it demands to be updated.

Because Windows Defender isn't an antivirus.

Hardware in back water hick towns are mostly software controlled fake ware which Vista refuses to run.

Examples?

Vista seizes the computer you will not be allowed to do any work what so ever until it's back ground processes which are running in normal mode are done.

Um, no, that doesn't happen at all.

MS can not even honestly compare Vista with Windows XP with all patches side by side and show Vista is more secure.

And that notion is laughed out by Ars Technica [arstechnica.com].

Then there is aero the most useless program i ever had crash on me daily.

Aero isn't a program.

then there is the fact Ctrl alt del keys sequence is now treated as a request not a fact to stop an irritant program.

Ctrl-Alt-Delete operates in the same way as under XP.

Oh and did you notice the Vista PR department stopped trying to dis Linux. Now they are trying to litigate FUD of owning various patents they refuse to show the public at large what they are. SCO tried this ploy too.

They're not litigating, so your complaint is "Microsoft stopped attacking Linux. HOW DARE THEY?!!?!?" Nice.

Then there is the H-1B Visa workers that are indentured servants to MS unable to apply at Google or other tech companies. All because ms doesn't want to pay the salaries US workers demand after going into debt through overpriced colleges of America.

Citation? I've heard horror stories about H1-B workers at IBM but not Microsoft, like here [tailrank.com].

Then there is the fact they will not play fair in the markets using exclusive contracts to lock out competitors. ( can you buy Linux on a store shelf now?)

Hasn't happened for years. (Yes.)

then there is the fact MS is going to sell a version of vista that works on lesser PCs. So even the company that produced it has lost faith in the product.

Microsoft are releasing a new version of Vista... so they've lost faith in Vista. Awesome.

I was an investor in MS stock now i will make sure my investments have nothing to do with them! I lost ~ 500 USD due to MS not wanting to play fair in the international markets. I divested and will not recommend their stock to any one!

As the rest of your post has been fairly shambolic, I'm going to take this little gem with a pinch of salt too.

Re:and then....

[MightyMartian]

Silly question, but why upgrade all the time anyway? If something works, why replace it? What's going to come out that will magically increase productivity?

You must be some sort of Communist.

Re:and then....

[Karzz1]

"NT has had robust security since it was designed in 1992,"

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHA... breath breathe... hahahahahhahaha -- that is the funniest thing I have heard on a long long time.

Re:and then....

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Because! The new OS is faster!

Really! New OSes are so much faster, I recently brought an old 386-16 back into service by putting Vista on it, and it easily outperforms the latest quad-cores running XP and 2K3.

Re:and then....

[Hal_Porter]

Don't be a pendant.

Re:WIndows 7 - better?

[lubricated]

mac and an xbox

Re:and then....

[cheater512]

Microsoft has support? You sure they arent forwarding all queries to my inbox?
It seems everyone wants me to fix their Windows woes, not Microsoft.

Why Windows SEVEN????

[xjimhb]

Why in hell is this going to be Windows SEVEN?? I can remember Windows 3 (well, 3.1 anyway) and there have been a LOT more than three versions (4, 5, and 6) since then ... 95, 98, 98SE, ME, NT, 2000, XP, and Vista ... seems like this next one should be Windows TWELVE, shouldn't it?

Oh, well, we know M$ can't write software, I guess they can't count either.