Vista at Risk of Being Bypassed by Businesses 729
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.
and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe this whole "upgrade the OS" thing isn't such a good business plan after all?
WIndows 7 - better? (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista is not a total failure, but its not a success either.
vista system hog (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WIndows 7 - better? (Score:1, Insightful)
there are some industries where they just can't do it, but if you have the inhouse resources and your not tied to a 3rd party app that's windows only, now would be a good time to make the pitch to managment.
And will it... (Score:2, Insightful)
Will it be full of anti-user software and self-disabling drivers? Absolutely.
Im just about fed up with Microsoft.
Im used to the music and video companies treating customers like criminals, but MS with their remote computer deactivation garbage sets them far over the line. As far as I'm concerned, Im going Ubuntu and Debian.
BTW, Ubuntu likes my new T61 thinkpad. And IBM/Lenovo is Linux friendly.
Re:What is so bad about Vista? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with waiting for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
The simple reality is tht, once you all out of step on the treadmill, then working to stay on it doesn't continue to look as attractive as it used to. Lock in is quite important to Microsoft's business model, and failing to keep businesses in step with current MS trends is actually quite a serious potential problem brewing.
Re:too late, too early, too in-between ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or in other words:
Vista is the new Millenium.
Re:vista system hog (Score:5, Insightful)
At what point does Vista join Win ME? (Score:4, Insightful)
The cynic in me says it doesn't matter because the DRM core of the OS will never get the criticism it deserves and, thus, any follow-on OS will be just as bad. No OS that manages someone else's rights without giving a hoot for mine will ever run on my hardware.
Re:WIndows 7 - better? (Score:1, Insightful)
This is a grate time for apple make osX for all 86 (Score:2, Insightful)
Drivers for ATI / AMD / NVIDIA / Intel chipsets can easy be made from MacOSX like they are from windows and linux. ATI / AMD / INTEL / NVIDIA Video drivers are the same way as well.
Re:WIndows 7 - better? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What is so bad about Vista? (Score:5, Insightful)
The vista push (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead, the real danger to MS is a push to thin clients. I've heard rumblings lately, and if the next OS dissappoints like vista, you can expect huge deployments of thin clients coming. I know it would make more financial sense for my location when time comes to upgrade from XP to go with thin clients chatting with a windows terminal server. There is risk involved with this step, but if we see another crappy OS come out, it will be the justification I need to validate the switch over.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
Re:Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And will it... (Score:1, Insightful)
Then I realize, what's in it for me? My copy works fine. Why buy into XP (or, god forbid, Vista) if I've got to deal with a pain in the arse for every hardware upgrade?
I think piracy protection is fine, but there's only so much you can do and should do. MS should only go so far as they need to go to stop casual hand-to-hand piracy by end-users. Going one step further and imposing a hardware checking system that is ultimately rendered useless by the latest cracks is just silly.
MS, you have the market share. I'd like to come back over to your side to play my games with greater ease, but you're making it hard.
Re:and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:and then.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, hail the genius. You mean, you'll practice running your presentations at least once from now on before going public on an out-of-the-box machine? Gee, I wish I'd thought of that one.
Increasing performance gap benefits Linux and Mac (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and then.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Citation needed.
I think many people are staying with Windows XP because their computers are good enough. And that doesn't translate to throwing out their entire machine and spending loads on a Mac.
Hell, I'm still on Windows 2000, works fine for me!
And the only reason Vista nags so much, is because people (presumably Mac users) slagged off XP so much for not asking you, and said how OS X was better because you had to enter your password to do such things. So that's who we have to thank for that!
Re:And will it... (Score:0, Insightful)
If you have ever seen a site with an agenda, well this is one you can remember.
Gotta love this place how they purposely in prior articles while Vista was being released the people around here were on the agenda to pronounce how great Windows 7 would be over Vista with its Unix like capabilities. They do this every year and stick their foot in their mouth once again when history repeats itself.
Vista is here and SP1 is coming, be prepared to be left with the minority on XP in 3 years.
Ubuntu will become popular definitely but there will most likely be some dispute amongst developers which will confuse the end user and leave them abandoned.
If people paid as much attention to the Linux desktop development as much as they committed to whining about what MS do, well then the Linux community might have a finished and polished desktop OS or maybe taken a lesson in GUI development.
Re:The problem with waiting for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux could most certainly power a strong desktop client but with the direction it has at the moment and always has had that won't happen.
Not to mention that my PC at home running Vista will run any Windows application you throw at it. You claim of "Vistas difficulties with such things" seems a bit unfounded to me. I agree that you sometimes might have to drop into emulation mode which should be transparent to the user and therefore needs some attention. However, I have yet to find any app that won't work on Vista.
Re:WIndows 7 - better? (Score:1, Insightful)
You're willing to wait through 3 versions of windows that violate your rights, before you'll even consider not paying money to the people who wrote it?
For most of us, the Windows XP EULA was as clear as it gets: click ok that that, and you no longer have the concept of a personal computer.
Sadly many people did click OK to Windows XP EULA, and to all that followed. Some of them even started complaining when they realised that microsoft had full remote access to their personal data and no contractual agreements or laws preventing them from abusing that data.
Now here we are with Vista (the liberties that OS takes are astounding) and people are still saying "oh I'll wait for the next one, and the one after that"
you lost your chance. your computer is not yours anymore. people in the world of free software might mourn your choices, but your data your PC and your organisation are pretty soon beyond rescue.
We are going to wait.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Vista might not be the utter stinking turd that ME was but it's a painful bowel movement nonetheless.
Here's to hoping Microsoft gets on the clue bus with Windows 7...
Re:and then.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why this guy is marked as a troll, but from a business perspective Vista does not offer anything to security or productivity that WinXP can't provide already provide with the proper patches. Of course there is Office 2007 (which I do like personally) but that still runs fine on WinXP.
Secondly, most admins in IT loathe change and the unknown. They are familiar with WinXP and all its quirks and the desire to be "cutting edge" has been lost on them. After all, you don't need DX10 to make Powerpoint and Excel look any better so why bother with something your not entirely familiar with.
Re:The problem with waiting for MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:too late, too early, too in-between ... (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words: every OS could boast the same sale figures... if it came preinstalled in every PC.
RT
--
Your Bookmarks. Anywhere. Anytime. [simplybookmarks.com]
Re:WIndows 7 - better? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and then.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft does this with updates. Sometimes it's sensible to EOL a product (stop releasing bug/security fixes), usually when the new one, supposedly better, is released. They did this with Win2K just before the Vista was out but they had XP to lean on. Then, they were to EOL XP, too - just to boost Vista sales. Not going to work, though - Vista is bad for business. There are too many issues with it - confusing licensing model, bad hardware support, bad apps support, you name it.
This time around businesses might just hold onto XP until new Windows is released and it proves to be an improvement over XP.
Microsoft is not as strong in a desktop area as it used to be, after all the goodness coming out of Linux distros and Apple. If they try to be tough and EOL XP while Vista is the only MS alternative, it'll be like trowing a chair in their own face.
Re:What is so bad about Vista? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:and then.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Open your eyes and look. My dad bought a Mac Laptop and has migrated to Linux. I'm typing this right now on an ex-Windows machine. Do you know anyone talking about the release of Gutsy? Pay attention.
Anyway if you want ones in the news.. here;
http://www.news.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html [news.com]
http://mtechit.com/linux-biz/ [mtechit.com] Open the links for the list of businesses in each sector using Linux.
And ones that we know about from the SCO debacle are Auto Zone and Daimler Chrystler.
Hell, I'm still on Windows 2000, works fine for me! I had too many driver problems and moved on. I got tired of hunting down a driver for a thumb drive every time someone handed me one. I still have it on the laptop hard drive I swapped out just in case I need it, but have found I seldom slide it back in the laptop to use it.
And that doesn't translate to throwing out their entire machine and spending loads on a Mac.
True, but it does often equate buying a Mac instead of a PC when picking up a new machine. The XP machine is still there and doesn't get tossed right away. It collects dust sitting there just in case it is needed for something until it is just in the way and gets tossed (donated).
And the only reason Vista nags so much, is because people (presumably Mac users) slagged off XP so much for not asking you,
In anything I have used that isn't Windows, updates and such being avaliable, don't stop the machine when a dialog shows up. A toolbar item gently brightning and dimming to get your attention for an application needing user input is one thing. Shutting off the movie that is playing to ask permission to do a Java update check (while there is no network connection) is just plain bad design regardless of how much it is a good idea to ask permission. It should not stop the show.
OS X was better because you had to enter your password to do such things
Does OS X freeze all open applications when it decided it needs the user permission to check for an update?
Re:Better question... (Score:4, Insightful)
When you do that on Vista, it looks like total utter crap - which is not fine.
So, would you rather use something that looks perfectly fine or total utter crap?
Re:The problem with waiting for MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and then.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Short answer YES. Java needed permission. Vista stopped the other running application cold to ask permission.
Asking permission with a notification icon is one thing on a dual monitor set up. Stopping the running movie is not acceptable behavior.
It is like having your engine in the car shut off because the passanger removed the seatbelt. Pardon me, but isn't the light on the dash enough?
OS X eye candy is useful (Score:5, Insightful)
It subconsciously gives me information and it useful.
The eye candy on my XP desktop at work is not useful, is mostly annoying, and doesn't help me understand my environment. That's a HUGE difference.
Microsoft's failure of their development process (Score:2, Insightful)
For years, Microsoft's books about software management were the best, because it included human management (by suggesting using geniuses for the coding) along with software planning.
But these last years, the agile methodologies (TDD, extreme programming, etc...) appeared and Microsoft has not been able to use them.
First, their main problem is that they have a lot of legacy code (millions of lines of code !) with ZERO automated test (we don't count code analysis as a test). Adding tests and refactoring the code will take several YEARS, since the code is not designed to be automatically tested.
Secondly, their tool (Visual Studio) is still unable to generate proper testing skeletons and sucks at refactoring (even though it's promised since several years).
Meanwhile, we see Apple, Google and Mozilla successfully use agile technologies, and tools like Eclipse ease agile development.
Apple releases one upgrade every SIX months, and Firefox releases one new version every year. Why cannot Microsoft do the same ?
A generation of cell phones takes less than one year !
Console generations last 2 or 3 years.
Even Ubuntu has a release cycle of one year.
Do Microsoft think everybody will wait 3 YEARS to get their new expensive OS ?
Technology changes every year, and gets cheaper, while Windows is still using old development procedures, and their OS are more and more expensive.
Microsoft has to quickly drop its one year beta phase, and implement automated tests, or Vista will die within the two next years.
At risk ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's probably a good thing they didn't.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The early versions of Linux were definitely for the tech savvy only. Driver support was lousy and you usually spent a lot of time on the command line getting yourself going. That's not something Joe Schmoe is going to want to do on his own.
It's not just tech savvy. It's tech savvy and masochistic. Just because I have plenty of experience editing configuration files, compiling code or writing/debugging device drivers from the hardware spec, that doesn't mean I want to spend my valuable free time doing it just to be able to use basic applications.
Speaking of business plans (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm astonished that I have yet to see the best reason not to roll out Vista in a business environment mentioned. The answer is quite simple.
Vista kills productivity, yet offers no real value in return.
In order to run Vista where I work, we would have to replace every single machine we have. That's over 100 desktops and laptops--not cheap. Granted, some of those computers need to be replaced, but that's beside the point. Even crappy P4, 1GHZ, 256MB RAM, on-board video computers run XP better than a brand new Dell laptop with 2GB RAM and a 256MB video card runs Vista (it was running Vista Business Premium). Why in the @#$%! should we pay a boatload of money to slash our workers' productivity? As far as I can see, there is absolutely no business case for Vista whatsoever. Until such a day as there is, then you can bet your bottom dollar I won't allow a move to Vista to kill ours.
Granted, from a technological standpoint, Vista is crap. But that's not the argument to make to your superiors when opposing it. Show them how it will hurt your bottom line. That'll get their attention.
Re:Speaking of business plans (Score:5, Insightful)
All technology aside, replacing the entire look'n'feel for our user base (office 2007 + Vista) would be a huge productivity killer for months, with no benefit whatsoever.
I'd like to have some better feature support, and I know that Vista has some sort of "corporate desktop theme", but the training overhead just kills me every time I think about it.
Now from a tech perspective - I can buy a brand new core 2 duo based desktop that will run XP at light speed, or stick them with a slow and bloated vista install... I'm personally inclined to skip vista and use what is "known" by our user base.
Does it bother me that we're rolling out new machines with an OS from 2001? yes. yes it does. but Vista isn't a solution in any way, shape, or form.
Re:and then.... (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean Linux on the desktop, right? Linux is already a pretty big presence in the server space.
Re:and then.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The reality is, this feature is easily turned off, even if you want to leave UAC on.
Type 'secpol.msc' into the start menu's "search/run" text area, go to
Local Policies->Security options and change
User Account Control: Switch to secure desktop when prompting for elevation to be disabled.
Honestly, if the fix for 'bad UI' is 'go dig around in the system for an obscure setting to disable', that's bad engineering.
Re:and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean, "I get to call someone in Delhi, who will walk me through the script, and tell me to reinstall Windows if my problem isn't on the script?"
Fuck that.
We joke a lot about bit rot around here. It's applicable to frequently-updated development environments, where it might matter which version of which DLL you're using.
(Warning, I feel a rant coming on! I'm not flaming you, I'm flaming a certain dipshit who'll probably never read this, because it's been that kind of a weekend for me.)
In a production system, bits don't rot. The only bits that rot are the ones fucked with by dipshits who think that having "support" is so important that it's worth upgrading part of a production system without checking to see if the fucking latest version of foo-are will work with the currently-installed versions of bar-ware, baz-ware, and quux-ware.
Bits don't rot. The production system I was speaking of worked fine for five years, and it would have worked for another five years had I not been ordered to fuck with it. (Hard drive failure? No problem, the point of being a production system is that it's static, so we'll just load it off a drive image.! Hardware failure in 2012 and you can't reinstall the old OS on it? That's what virtual machines are for! We don't need to fucking upgrade just because some douchebag in a suit says that the old version isn't "supported". We've never fucking had to call support for the old version of the product, because it actually fucking worked!)
CAPTCHA: "coffee". Heh. I've had one too many, I guess, but at least I feel better now :)
Re:What is so bad about Vista? (Score:3, Insightful)
Results 1 - 10 of about 101,000,000 for linux problems.
Results 1 - 10 of about 95,000 for windows "sucks ass"
Results 1 - 10 of about 44,000 for linux "sucks ass".
Results 1 - 10 of about 32,300,000 for vista problems. (0.13 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,220,000 for RHEL problems. (0.15 seconds
So What's your point?
Not to call you a dumb-ass... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ubuntu is a good desktop OS. Linux is the name of the kernel.
Just like Red Hat produce a great enterprise product. The user experience is still defined by the quality of the product provided by Red Hat. Linux based distributions usually share from the wealth of quality software produced and provided by the community, but that doesn't mean that the responsibility (or blame) for the quality of the distribution falls on the KDE or Gnome project manager. That's backwards. These projects do great work and then give you (or in the two examples the companies) the source. To presume that this is the final product would show an amazing lack of imagination.
An individual distribution can do as much to improve or customize the operating environment as they want. Including developing standards and improvements based on their target market. When people expect "Linux" or the community at large to do this I find it kind of alarming. Linux and the open source projects surrounding it are far too diverse in scope and purpose to create the kind of one-size-fits-all user utopia you seem to be suggesting. But if you're interested in seeing it succeed in a particular segment (desktop in this case) then focusing your comments or energy on a single distribution would probably be the right way to address your concerns (and maybe even help or make a difference).
Finally (sorry, this is long) a Windows compatibility layer does not mean Windows clone. If that's something you're actually looking for I think you'll always be disappointed. At best Wine is a crutch to possibly ease the transition.
Re:and then.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The problem with waiting for MS (Score:2, Insightful)
And I could argue that this is its greatest strength. Every distribution caters to a different type of end user. Not having Jobs or Ballmer dictate how my system should function or look is one of the things which makes Linux my operating system of choice. Having something like the LSB project to simplify installation for vendors makes more sense for standardization than a "central authority".
Really? I found a few [iexbeta.com]
Re:and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)
5 years ago I would have told you a 800x600 15" display works. Try upgrading to a 1600x1200 20", or better yet 20" 1600x1200 next to another monitor for dual monitor use. This also works, and works so much better that once you adapt to the new possibilities, the old way no longer 'works'.
Same with internet connectivity. Disk space. Etc.
Admittedly hardware, but you could say the same thing about some revolutionary software breakthroughs; Protected memory, fair scheduling, good filesystems, network filesystems, etc.
Ideally what you have now will always work for what you do now, but will limit you in what you can do in the future. You have to update what you have to update what you can then grow to do.
The trick is to weight he risks. If theres no noticable improvement, upgrade somewhere that isn't expected to be stable first. Test your updates. Make sure nothing breaks before you roll them out.
agreed: Ubuntu is Linux's only chance for mainstre (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:and then.... (Score:3, Insightful)
NT's security model is actually more robust and provides more security than the *nix model. (Remember the designers came from VMS, not an unsecure OS by any means.)
Just because XP let users run as the root equivalent so that compatibility would not break from Win9X applications that had no idea about security. If MS would have designed a 'root' or security prompt into XP instead of waiting until Vista to do this, it would no longer be an issue as software would adhere to the NT security model and not assume it has root level access when running under a user.
The NT team specifically designed the NT security model so that it would not have the inherent holes found in others OSes of the time, including *nix, and is one reason they reject the VMS and *nix models from that time period as they didn't want NT to be limited.
Go read Inside NT, or even read a tech article, this is not something fanbois make up:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/ntwrkstn/reskit/security.mspx?mfr=true [microsoft.com]
Re:The problem with waiting for MS (Score:3, Insightful)
Open office runs on all distros and looks the same on all of them, so does ut2k4 for that matter. Anyone who thinks this "too many distros" objection is a valid point (MODERATOR) doesn't have enough perspective to be commenting on the subject.
Was Microsoft joking? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, in reading this article, I have just been enlightened. I realize that all this time, I was confused because I didn't understand the purpose of Windows Vista. You see, I thought it was Microsoft's way of making a really, really funny joke. I mean, what else could Vista possibly be? Let's examine Vista and see why this is so:
- Every other button you push, the entire screen goes black and it asks you, "Did you really push that button?"
- The system is so excruciatingly slow that even on the newest hardware, it is much, much slower than XP on much older hardware.
- Boatloads of drivers and applications that worked fine under XP do not function under Vista. The result is that things like printers that were supported just fine under XP do not work under Vista. The result is that you have to throw away your perfectly good printer or whatever, and get a new one, as if having just bought a brand new computer and dropping a ton of money on Vista Ultimate isn't enough of an expense.
- The Vista installer takes F*O*R*E*V*E*R to load, and then gleefully tells you that Windows Vista "saves you time," as if to demonstrate that if the installer is this slow, wait 'till you experience the operating system!
- The colors chosen for the Vista desktop and windows are such an eyesore that even their own mother couldn't possibly like them. I'd like to know what the graphic designers were smoking, because I want some.
- There are not one or two but six different versions of Vista. Do they suddenly think they're in the Linux business because it seems they want to scream out, "We're just like Linux; we have too many distros to choose from too!" (Well, I think someone mentioned that RMS wanted Vista to be called GNU/Vista or something like that.)
- Even if you're an expert XP user, you have to completely relearn how to use a computer when you downgrade to Vista, because everything is so significantly different that you'll have a field day just figuring out how to move a file from one place to another.
So, I mean, what else but a really funny joke could this be? A product?But having read this story, I now understand that there are actually people who worked on this Vista thing who believed that they were making a serious software product. The only thing I can think to say is that this is a tremendous shame. I mean, Windows XP can do pretty much anything that a business might need. All they had to do was spend the last five years or so perfecting XP, ironing out all the bugs, cleaning it up as much as they could, optimizing it for better performance, tightening up security, etc. That would have given them a very solid product with which to compete. Instead, they wasted all this effort, time, and money making a product so embarrassingly slow and bloated, even on the newest hardware, that many businesses are avoiding it like the plague. I'm sorry but I really think that Vista is an enormous flop, even if Microsoft is successful in selling millions of copies. The point is that Vista is actually a very good advertisement for Apple Macs with Mac OS X, and for Linux and the *BSDs.
Their motto used to be "Where do you want to go today?" I don't know about you, but as my sig and journal both say, Microsoft released Vista, so I went to an Apple retail store and bought a Mac.
Ok. No email about the world's finest software company is complete without a remark that calls for chairs to be thrown... but I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.
Re:and then.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and then.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Speaking of business plans (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that a fresh install of XP in its 25 October 2001 incarnation probably wouldn't stand up against Vista at its release date, but businesses are unlikley to be comparing un-patched Vista vs un-patched XP. Vista patched vs XP patched, in a corporate environment, where usually AV is installed and maintained, there is a nice firewall to protect internal clients, there may even be an IDS to spot anything that was missed and other MS technologies are being used to 'lock down' the computers to ensure security the difference between Vista and XP is going to be non existent, well except that there is poor driver support for Vista, it may require other infrastructure changes, it costs more in hardware terms, it may require user training and oh it appears to be encumbered by restrictive technologies that bring no benefit whatsoever to a business.
The use of respective comparable after-release periods doesn't seem all that sensible as threat assessments go, mainly because the situation changes rapidly and systems are patched for threats as they appear, it should be more sensible to compare platforms as they are at a given point in time (i.e. compare XP vs Vista vs Debian as from Today, and then comparing them all only when they are functionally similar, i.e. comparing a base Debian install (with nothing other than the base) with XP would be unfair. In fact if you compare vulnerabilities reported in the first 10 months of release for both vista and XP using data from SANS, it would appear that Vista has 15 (1 un-patched) and XP had 0 in the same comparative period the first noted being after the 10 month period ( starting 26.10.2001).
So no, You don't have a major reason to upgrade.
Re:and then.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:and then.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I've gotten so spoiled with Linux desktop environments that I feel constricted and frustrated when I'm forced to use Windows. It makes a very noticeable difference. Browsing the web and something reminds you that you need to do task X, but you don't want to forget what you're doing now? Switch to a new desktop and do it, then switch back and everything is how you left it.
You needs may differ from mine, but I can tell you there are plenty of ways to "magically" increase productivity by switching operating systems for a lot of people.
Re:Speaking of business plans (Score:3, Insightful)
Vista vs XP, Vista is more secure.
Vista vs XP in a corporate environment with all the additional security systems and procedures already present, Vista is *not* significantly more secure than XP.
Since Vista requires a large investment in terms of hardware, licensing, training and time for migration, the significance of any minor security improvement is reduced.
Would a haulage operator re-purchase all of his vehicles because a new one was 25%* less likely to be stolen? Would he do so if the new vehicle required twice as much fuel to go twice as far, needed months of roll out planning time, different licenses for the drivers and didn't work with some of the ancillary equipment that was already in place?
What if 10 vehicles of his 30 vehicle fleet were stolen each year? Then he probably would.
What if 1 vehicle of his 250 vehicle fleet were stolen each year? Then he would not.
Security's is important, it is probably one of the *most* important element when looking at IT systems, mainly because a single failure can destroy a company and because there are so many potential issues, but IT security is *not* just about the OS, and its not the only factor. Get it through your head that the increased security in vista is not sufficient at this time to be a significant reason to buy.
Oh and thanks for the personal attack, I see that if you are incapable of making an argument you feel an insult is sufficient, I suggest that politics may be a good career choice at some point.
*25% being an arbitrary figure 50% or 150% works just as well.