Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows IT

Gartner Tells Businesses to Forget About Vista 309

Posted by timothy
from the whereas-9.04-to-9.10-is-not-bad dept.
Barence writes "IT analyst firm Gartner has told businesses to skip Vista and prepare to roll out Windows 7. Companies have traditionally been advised to wait until the first Service Pack of an operating system arrives before considering migration. However, Gartner is urging organisations that aren't already midway through Vista deployments to give the much-maligned operating system a miss. 'Preparing for Vista will require the same amount of effort as preparing for Windows 7, so at this point, targeting Windows 7 would add less than six months to the schedule and would result in a plan that is more politically palatable, better for users, and results in greater longevity.' Even businesses that are midway through planning a Vista migration are urged to consider scrapping the deployment. 'Consider switching to Windows 7 if it would delay deployment by six months or less.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Gartner Tells Businesses to Forget About Vista

Comments Filter:
  • by symbolset (646467) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @05:44PM (#27981867) Journal

    What Gartner is for is to tell us what Microsoft wants us to do.

    What insightful, cutting edge analysis this would have been... four years ago.

    The Gartner experts say all companies should move off Windows XP by the end of 2012 to avoid problems with application compatibility.

    I agree with this part... but do not agree about what companies should move to. It's time to get off the train to crazytown.

    • by mangu (126918) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @05:54PM (#27981917)

      I agree with this part... but do not agree about what companies should move to.

      With Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot with Vista, the big question is how many feet they have. If the answer is "two", then windows 7 is their last bullet.

      • by Darkness404 (1287218) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @06:08PM (#27982029)
        Heck, MS has more feet then that. They shot themselves in the foot with Windows ME too, luckily for them they had the reasonably stable Windows NT ready to go out the door. I think the only reason why Windows 7 will succeed is that MS's hardware requirements are commonplace. For example with Vista, you had companies left and right selling laptops and desktops with the minimum specs needed for Vista, they would have been great XP machines, but for some unknown reason they put Vista on them, that totally killed its reputation (because for some reason people think its *normal* to require 1 GB to run an OS, which I don't understand).

        MS is swimming in money. On the other hand, they keep losing mindshare to Apple left and right.
        • Heck, MS has more feet then that.

          THEY'RE GIANT ****ING CENTIPEDES!!! FROM HELL!!! WITH LASER CANNONS!!!

          (Look at that, I just shot myself in the foot with a laser cannon. And that's what I do to my friends!)

          • by tsa (15680)

            And don't forget, the laser cannons are attached to its head!

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by dr_wheel (671305)
          "They shot themselves in the foot with Windows ME too, luckily for them they had the reasonably stable Windows NT ready to go out the door."

          Not exactly sure what you meant by this. Windows NT was around long before ME. I thought, maybe you meant Windows 2000. I was pretty sure that ME and 2000 were released around the same time. Nope. According to wikipedia, Win2000 came out in February 2000, while ME came a full 7 months later in September. So... what exactly did you mean?
          • MS ported most of the important stuff (plug and play and support for a common driver model between the two lines to help hardware manufacturs transition) to the NT line with 2K but bottled out of pushing 2K to home/small buisness users and produced another version of the 9x line instead.

            So when ME flopped it wasn't a huge deal, they just added a home edition to the next minor release of the NT line and scrapped 9x. While 2K/XP was slower than 9x it was a noticable improvement in terms of both stability and ability to handle lots of windows open at once.

            • by EpsCylonB (307640)
              and ability to handle lots of windows open at once.
              I believe its called Multitasking
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by petermgreen (876956)

                I don't think the issue with lots of windows on 9x was a multitasking issue per-se (afaict the issue would happen regardless of whether all the windows were created by the same app/thread or not) but an issue with win9x still relying on some 16-bit GDI stuff and running out of GDI resources.

        • by mangu (126918) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @07:16PM (#27982563)

          MS is swimming in money

          That's relative. Their stock value [yahoo.com], currently around $20, never again reached their peak of $60 after 2000.

          Their cash reserves [seattlepi.com] aren't what they used to be, they spent two thirds of it trying to shore up the stock price, without result.

          Their revenues [microsoft-watch.com] are dropping through the floor.

          It's a huge company that won't disappear so soon, but if you pay $40 billion in dividends and still have so much problem to get the stock price back to 30% of the peak [yahoo.com]...

          • by SerpentMage (13390) <ChristianHGross&yahoo,ca> on Saturday May 16, 2009 @07:29PM (#27982689)

            I don't know anymore about a company that wont disappear soon...

            I have been thinking quite a bit about this and the one thing that could REALLY do major damage is the fabled Apple Tablet.

            Up to this point Apple has been gaining market share, by building new markets for itself. Point to Apple.

            But this netbook thing I think is here to stay and we have not seen the end of that design. Thus if Apple were to bring onto market an Apple Tablet in the netbook range then people would seriously look at that device.

            I don't have an iBook (had one several years ago). Write code for the most part using Windows and .NET. But I have an iPod Touch and Apple has made some nice revenue from my buying of music and apps.

            Now if they were to bring onto market a Tablet I would be client number 1 because right now I want an easy to use tablet to surf my information. Yes I have a Windows Tablet, but Vista sucks big time.

            And this raises another point. If Apple puts in a stake in the netbook market how much longer will companies like HP wait and beg for scraps from Apple? They will go scurrying to Apple for anything because they don't want to risk landing in the abyss...

            And I am sure that Steve Jobs would just love to stick a stake into Microsoft for the decades of damage Microsoft caused...

            Thus I do think if something like this happened, Microsoft VERY QUICKLY would go the way of the Dodo...

            Disclosure: I write programs using .NET and that would put a crimp in lifestyle...

            • Apple can't make it in the netbook category because they won't sell cheap hardware plain and simple. If Apple really wanted to crush MS all they would have to do would be sell OS X for PCs. They could do it easily, build up ~25% marketshare in the first few months, and basically confine MS to gamers and businesses, until they built up about 50% marketshare in a year or so.

              Put OS X on PC hardware and Apple will be the next king of silicon valley.
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by samriel (1456543)

                Put OS X on PC hardware and Apple will be the next king of silicon valley.

                Yes, they would win on the software side. However, if you can put OSX on PC hardware, then you have no incentive to buy Apple's own hardware. This knocks the legs out from under Apple, and they have a net loss from this move. They haven't done it yet for good reason.

                • How would it be a net loss? Lets say Apple has control of 3% of the market currently. And lets say they make $500 in profit for each Mac (software/hardware) sold on average. Lets say that they only make about $100 for each license of OS X, it isn't a lot more of marketshare before they start to make a profit.

                  Software is dirt cheap to make when you are Apple. Whether they sell 100 copies of OS X or 500 million, it still cost the same to develop and sell (packaging/DVDs are cheap today). People will still
              • by bonch (38532) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @08:47PM (#27983151)

                I don't think Apple is interested in the netbook market because they consider the iPhone to be their portable computer.

                • But it clearly isn't. A full keyboard is necessary for any real work, and so is a *real* OS and not a walled garden. I can't do half the things that I can on a Mac or even Windows box on the iPhone, the browser lacks Flash so many sites won't work, etc.
                • by mdwh2 (535323)

                  Which is exactly the point he was making. They're a niche player in the mobile phone market anyway, and anyone who wants a full blown netbook isn't going to satisfy themselves with a phone.

              • by mdwh2 (535323)

                Apple can't make it in the netbook category because they won't sell cheap hardware plain and simple. ... confine MS to gamers and businesses

                So MS will be "confined" to merely all Internet devices, gaming and all businesses, leaving Apple to be "king" of the remaining niche markets? I can just see MS quaking in their boots at that.

          • by Spasemunki (63473) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @10:53PM (#27983819) Homepage

            The stock price will likely not reach those heights again not because Microsoft is fundamentally in trouble, but because the market primarily values growth. Microsoft already owns a piece of damn near every computer in the world, so there's really nowhere to go but down; their non-core offerings have, at best, a checkered history and don't inspire confidence in investors.

            MS has been transitioning out of the 'growth' mold in the assessment of stock pickers for years. That's why the price is down, and is staying down. Paying out dividends is not a ploy to buoy the stock price, as the stock is already training at a premium way above the dividend value; paying dividends is just what a reasonable Board does in response to a huge excess of cash that can't be reasonably invested in growth. They're a publicly traded company and have to act in the interest of the shareholder.

            As to their revenues... they took modest losses in one of the worst economies since the Depression, during a period when their last major product release is several years in the mirror, and people are holding out on major purchases as the next one comes into view. That's a pretty enviable position to most companies.

        • by adolf (21054) <flodadolf@gmail.com> on Saturday May 16, 2009 @08:19PM (#27982961) Journal

          What's 1GB of RAM these days? $12? Sheesh.

          Vista has far cheaper memory requirements than any other released version of desktop Windows, to date.

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Darkness404 (1287218)
            But the question is why? I can get a Ubuntu system to do far more than a Vista system on 512 MB of RAM. I can have more impressive 3-D effects with less RAM without slowdowns. No system should really require more than 512 MB of RAM. Sure, everyone should really have a gig or two of it because its dirt cheap today, but an OS should have a minimal footprint.

            If you can't have a fast system with 512 MB of RAM you are doing something wrong.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by mdwh2 (535323)
              512MB? Amiga can do a multitasking GUI in 512 KB. Beat that, Ubuntu boy.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            So we should insert empty loops in code just cause CPU cycles have never been cheaper?

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by thsths (31372)

            > What's 1GB of RAM these days? $12?

            Talking standard DDR2, yes. But what about DDR1, or DDR3?

            Next issue: the 3GB limit. If Windows uses 1 now, that only leaves 2 for the applications. If you were using 2 GB before, you would install 4 GB, and lose another GB because of the limit.

            Corporations want to use older PCs, too. Getting an engineer out to replace 1 GB with 2 GB of DDR1 can be quite expensive.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Savage-Rabbit (308260)

        With Microsoft shooting themselves in the foot with Vista, the big question is how many feet they have. If the answer is "two", then windows 7 is their last bullet.

        Microsoft shot itself in the foot at some point with Windows 3.x, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, various iterations of Windows XP, Windows Vista... the list goes on and those are only their operating system FUBARs. My personal Microsoft Office FUBAR list starts at the "red crosses of death" that fucked up one of my first project reports almost two decades ago and goes on from there. You can probably find a longer list than mine. The only thing that differed from shot to shot was the caliber of bullet t

    • by Gary W. Longsine (124661) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @06:00PM (#27981949) Homepage Journal
      Insightful would be something like this: Businesses which are dependent on proprietary document storage formats like .doc, .xls, and .ppt, or upon Windows-only programming frameworks like Win32, .Net, or ASP should immediately begin migration to platform independent programming API and document storage formats.
    • The real insight is that Microsoft is also skipping Vista. The new Windows 7 has a built-in virtual machine that emulates Windows XP. Windows 7 does not emulate Vista.

      Why? Likely, the number of Windows-XP users is substantially larger than the number of Vista users. Sheer profit motivates Microsoft management to pursue the larger market: Windows-XP users.

    • It does seem convenient since MS could use the influx of cash (not to mention the good press if adoption goes well). However, considering that staying with a mature XP has worked out better, would it be worth it for businesses with existing XP installations to start migrating to Vista now since it has been tested, and hope for an extension of Vista's availability and support in the same vein as XP's?
  • Gartner (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sentientbeing (688713) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @05:46PM (#27981881)
    Gartner is just a Microsoft lobbying group. Treat them as such.
    • Re:Gartner (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jcr (53032) <.jcr. .at. .mac.com.> on Saturday May 16, 2009 @06:06PM (#27981999) Journal

      Gartner is just a Microsoft lobbying group.

      I remember when Gartner was telling everyone that OS/2 would matter. It's not that they work for MS as such, it's that they're in the business of providing CYA documentation for anyone who wants to do what everyone else is doing.

      -jcr

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Jeff DeMaagd (2015)

      Then why are they suggesting that businesses avoid Vista and cancel existing transitions to Vista? That doesn't sound like a Microsoft party line to me.

      • Re:Gartner (Score:5, Insightful)

        by marcello_dl (667940) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @06:24PM (#27982161) Homepage Journal

        sometimes you sacrifice something expendable for the result you want; the expendable concept is "vista sucks", which many people believe anyway. The result is "wait and buy win7" instead of "windows isn't dominant anymore, consider the alternatives"

         

      • Re:Gartner (Score:4, Interesting)

        by CarpetShark (865376) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @06:24PM (#27982165)

        They're not suggesting that. They're TELLING people to stop sticking with XP, and spend money on Windows 7. Microsoft cut its losses on Vista a long time ago, but obviously had to keep up some pretense that it was really a good product, and doing well. Their main goal for a long time has been to get Windows 7 out in some sort of more-acceptable-than-vista state (which they seem to have failed at), and to make sure people buy it this time, which they're attempting to ensure with extra PR, and the usual highly questionable tactics like this Gartner thing.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      /., please stop posting these stupid Gartner reports.

      Moderated story -1. SPAMBIN

  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn.gmail@com> on Saturday May 16, 2009 @05:49PM (#27981895) Journal
    Software Engineer: I sure am kind of on the fence about Windows 8, it's too quick and responsive ... I can't put my finger on it ...
    Systems Engineer: Not enough bloat? Maybe you just miss Windows 7?
    Software Engineer: No, it's not that ... it has the quality of that one before Windows 7 ...
    Systems Engineer: Windows XP?
    Software Engineer: No, there was something that happened briefly in between those two that Windows 8 feels like ...
    Systems Engineer: I don't know what you're talking about, we need to get back to work, here are all your requirements.
    Software Engineer: Vivid? Vivace? Something foreign sounding ...
    Systems Engineer: No, you idiot, shut up! Don't you remember the ...
    Software Engineer: VISTA!
    *men with guns in black clothing with Gartner symbols sewn into them storm from the Gartner door near the servers and slip bags over the two engineers' heads and drag them towards the exits; they are never heard from again*
  • how they change their tune 180 degrees when it becomes convenient for Microsoft. (Apologies for the mixed mataphor.)
  • by Anarchduke (1551707) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @06:06PM (#27981997)
    For all the venom poured at the feet of Gartner, they are only saying what I have been saying since for months.

    Gartner is only giving advice that many IT analysts have been saying for quite some time. Skip vista, hold on to Windows XP, and wait for the next release before considering upgrading. Hardly a controversial statement, especially with Windows 7 due to go Gold by the holiday season.

    I know Slashdot has a tradition of instantly hating everything remotely associated with Microsoft, but Gartner is an IT firm that spends a great deal of time advising businesses on how to best implement Microsoft products. They aren't the Mouth of Sauron, speaking what the Eye of Mordor wants spoken.

    Honestly, Microsoft would really prefer that businesses upgrade to Vista now, then upgrade to Windows 7 a year from now. That means more money to them. Gartner is only giving common sense advise and saying, hold off on spending your money because Vista is dead end.

    Yes, we would all like to see more businesses switch to Linux, but that isn't going to happen very quickly, if at all. But if your company is thinking of migrating from XP to a more modern operating system, it would come as no surprise if the analyst they hired said, "don't go to Vista, wait for Windows 7".
    • by Shados (741919)

      Honestly, Microsoft would really prefer that businesses upgrade to Vista now, then upgrade to Windows 7 a year from now. That means more money to them

      Aside for all the businesses with software insurance or a similar licensing agreement, where its the same amount of money either way :)

    • by gmuslera (3436)
      No, they aren't the Mouth of Sauron, because what the Eye of Mordor wanted to be spoken was something like "One OS to rule them all, and in the blueness bind them"... not even that they managed to say right.
    • For all the venom poured at the feet of Gartner, they are only saying what I have been saying since for months.

      Yeah. It's just such a duh statement, though. That's why we're making fun of them, they're either restating the completely obvious or making inaccurate predictions.

      In other news, Gartner advises not to upgrade computer to Windows 7 while in the tub.

    • by rahvin112 (446269) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @07:23PM (#27982639)

      Honesty would be Gartner saying that Windows 7 is Windows Vista with a new coat of paint and that there is no real reason to upgrade to Windows 7. The press turned against Microsoft on Vista because of the IT backlash, but lets be honest they've bought the press lock stock and barrel on Windows 7. There isn't a damn thing different about Windows 7 and vista under the hood. The same things that Gartner and others blasted Vista for is being ignored with Windows 7. Microsoft must have paid the appropriate people really well in advance of the Windows 7 reviews because franly their's NO business incentive to upgrade from XP.

    • Gartner is only giving advice that many IT analysts have been saying for quite some time.

      Exactly. Haven't you noticed the shill-pattern yet? Most of those people started saying that stuff even before it was clear that Windows 7 booted on most of the machines around, much less after any serious long-term testing that you could possibly build a business recommendation on. These guys have been parroting the Microsoft line for months, that Windows 7 is as good as XP. Only now, others have had a chance to do

    • by trawg (308495)

      Doesn't this just reek of a clever long-term business plan by Microsoft?

      Maybe they realised, years ago, everyone was really happy with XP. Holy shit! They'd made the perfect product! Noone would ever want or need to upgrade again!

      So they intentionally release Vista as a turd. Everyone hates on it and noone decides to upgrade.

      Then they release the new hotness of Windows 7 - compared to Vista, it's amazing! Everyone gives it good reviews. Why /wouldn't/ you install it? It's SO much better than Vista!

      Everyone

    • IIRC, Gartner was one of the first to say that all shops should move to Vista. Then, when it came out and had a poor reviews, Then and ONLY THEN, did they say, that MAYBE you might not want to move to it. Gartner is attached to the front of Bill's and Chuck's Pants.
  • 6 months! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RiotingPacifist (1228016) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @06:08PM (#27982023)

    Windows 7 may be better than vista, but surely your going to wait for SP1*, meaning it will be at least a year before its good to go.

    *Hell i even wait for 'sp1' before trusting a new ubuntu release (Obviously as a geek i start using it at beta 1)

    • by Malc (1751)

      Yes, it's definitely bad advice. One never deploys a new MS OS when it's first released. This won't be a six month wait at this point, but 12 to 18.

  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Saturday May 16, 2009 @06:09PM (#27982031) Homepage Journal

    Gartner is telling us to pretend Vista never happened, just as Microsoft intends. But that's like seeing the original Highlander, then seeing Highlander 2... and then going to see Highlander 3! Why the fuck would you do that? You know it's going to be a let-down.

    • by fostware (551290)

      There's a Highlander 2?

      Although that is around the time I started receiving hypnotherapy...

  • For Windows 9, which will be based of of linux kernel 2.8.12.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by CarpetShark (865376)

      For Windows 9, which will be based of of linux kernel 2.8.12.

      The way Microsoft do things, it'll probably be based off Linux 1.2.1

  • by knarf (34928) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @06:18PM (#27982109) Homepage

    Sony tells me I need a Blueray player, Philips says I should look into ditching that old coffee maker for one of those wasteful cartridge-thingies, Proctor and Gamble insists my hair needs Head and Shoulders, Gartner says we should consider buying the next Microsoft operating system. Since when do I care about what advertisers say?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by John Hasler (414242)

      > Since when do I care about what advertisers say?

      Well, you care enough to know what they say.

  • At last they manage to say something that were at least half right... But they still have to fix the operating system name in the "prepare to roll out Windows 7" half.
  • by petes_PoV (912422) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @06:28PM (#27982187)
    ... AND getting paid for it

    You've gotta respect the "analysts" at Gartner. Anyone who's read anything about PCs within the last year would have come to this conclusion. However, when you write it in a high-priced report, and present it in a pretty cover, some sort of Dilbert-ian logic takes over and the contents (whatever they happen to be) suddenly have the meaning, insight and authority that makes them worthy of directorial consideration.

    • > You've gotta respect the "analysts" at Gartner. Anyone who's read anything about PCs
      > within the last year would have come to this conclusion.

      Well, no. Some of us have come to the conclusion that the thing to do is not have bugger-all to do with any Microsoft products at all.

    • by StormReaver (59959) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @10:39PM (#27983757)

      > Anyone who's read anything about PCs within the last year would have come to this conclusion.

      Anyone who's used a Microsoft operating system in the last 15 years should have come to this conclusion a long time ago. I predict two things will happen:

      1) The sun will rise in the morning (obvious inaccuracies aside).

      2) Microsoft will release Windows 7 to much fanfare, and people will forget the last 15 years of wasted effort trying to keep Windows in operation. They will be shocked, SHOCKED, at all the Windows viruses hampering their work and play. They will bitch and moan, but will keep throwing their time and money in the fire. The temporary good judgment they showed at avoiding Vista will evaporate.

  • There is a server recession/depression and Business need to put off investments and asset upgrades until the business environment becomes more favorable.

    What kind of ROI (return on investment)will upgrading bring? Seems MS had already succeeded in building a better mouse trap. No real reason to upgrade unlike its predecessors.

    • What kind of ROI (return on investment)will upgrading bring? Seems MS had already succeeded in building a better mouse trap. No real reason to upgrade unlike its predecessors.

      Well, Microsoft has already stopped mainstream support for XP, though I believe they'll continue supplying security patches for a few more years...

  • Samba support (Score:2, Informative)

    by caubert (1301759)
    The company I work for has its network and file sharing built on Samba. Well, W7 does not support Samba yet, so no migration planned. Getting through to shares does actually work, but joining a Samba domain does not. I don't know, MS, please fix it.
    • Re:Samba support (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fluffy99 (870997) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @11:08PM (#27983913)

      Well, W7 does not support Samba yet

      It's Samba that needs to catch up, not Microsoft. Windows7 dropped support for the archaic NT4 domain structure that Samba emulates.

      Samba is a poor substitute as a domain controller. Sure you can get an NT4 style domain working, but you're missing out on all the power that Active Directory gives you. For that matter, Samba leaves a lot to be desired as a windows file server as well.

      • Re:Samba support (Score:4, Insightful)

        by The Cisco Kid (31490) on Sunday May 17, 2009 @09:43AM (#27986239)

        Sure, catch up with an undocumented proprietary moving standard. Guess what - thats one of the reasons MS keeps changing things - it isn't to make it work better, its to make solutions from anyone other than MS work less well.

        The correct solution is to ditch the entire Microsoft paradigm altogether. Things like Samba are just a band aid for the drooling masses who's eyes glaze over if the buttons aren't in exactly the same position on every computer.

  • Um... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sootman (158191) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @07:22PM (#27982631) Homepage Journal

    ... won't businesses wait for Windows 7 SP1 anyway?

    That said, every geek worth his salt (let alone any actual IT professional) should take advantage of the fact that MS will let you download and run the Release Candidate Customer Preview of Vista 7 Ultimate for free for a year. Works just fine in VirtualBox (also free, for Win, Lin, and OS X) as described here. [sun.com] Even if you hate MS for whatever reason, it's still worth knowing what they're doing, especially if you can do so for free on whatever platform you're (probably) currently using.

  • Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thetoadwarrior (1268702) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @08:47PM (#27983153) Homepage
    Windows 7 is basically a service pack for Vista so it's not like you're moving to something completely different. You're moving to Vista as it should be.
  • SAVE VISTA! (Score:5, Funny)

    by David Gerard (12369) <slashdot@NospAm.davidgerard.co.uk> on Saturday May 16, 2009 @08:59PM (#27983221) Homepage

    Original blog post [today.com] - Facebook group [facebook.com]

    Microsoft has said it may ditch Vista the moment Windows 7 comes out. They've since backtracked - but we need to make sure they know our feelings.

    Windows 7 is CASTRATED APPEASEMENT to soy latte-sipping girly-men who wish they owned a Mac. We want a REAL operating system. An operating system that PERSONIFIES America's INDUSTRIAL MIGHT. That makes you feel AWE at the MAJESTY of the progress of its operation. VISTA is a monument to everything that makes us the country we are!

    Like Chrysler, like Hummer, like Edsel - "Vista" is a name that will be remembered as the greatest operating system in Microsoft's history.

    Just Say "No" To Seven -

    SAVE VISTA!

    We want ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE to join the Facebook group. So far we have about 80. TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS!

    "I fully support this initiative. My computer business employs 200 people; the best possible thing for it is to make sure Vista continues and goes forward." - M. Shuttleworth, London

    "I can't tell you how much Vista has done for my business. So many people depend on it." - S. Jobs, Cupertino

    "Vista is the one thing that will keep people seeking out and using systems that are at the forefront of technology. It's been the best thing for all of us." - L. Torvalds, Portland

    "I'm ... I'm touched. *sob* I didn't think anyone cared. You guys. Developers! *sob*" - S. Ballmer, Seattle

  • by eyepeepackets (33477) on Saturday May 16, 2009 @11:37PM (#27984051)

    The reviewers who actually do performance evaluations of Windows 7 continue to make this point: The performance between Windows 7 and Vista is marginal at best and often indistinguishable.

    Windows 7 is Vista with a marketing make over. It's being pushed from the bottom up in a faux ground swell astroturfers saying "Windows 7 is great!" but ignoring the performance evaluations.

    The best that can be said for Windows 7 is that its true name should be Vista SP2.

  • What a load of BS (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cheros (223479) on Sunday May 17, 2009 @03:16AM (#27984979)

    Sorry, but this *really* irritates me. These people appear to have reverse Alheimers: good short term memory and zero long term. But I haven't (more the reverse, so I may post this twice :-)).

    This is BS as it depends on two unmentioned assumptions:

    1 - businesses actually need anything more/newer than XP. Well, MS has been postponing the end of support a few times now because people would either not move to Vista or move to Linux which would REALLY be unacceptable because they wouldn't come back after sinking that one-off cost. Granted, Vista has apparently introduced some features that may help in the future, but MS has now learned that there is only so much beta, sorry, alpha testing the buying public will accept. And business has learned it doesn't actually NEED the repeated pain of migration, even if MS says so. You could say the racket is up, in almost the same way as the use of expenses by UK MPs.

    2 - somehow, Windows 7 will be better than Vista and not the disaster that Vista was. Well, we're back to business as usual then: the PROMISE of improvement. The eternal promise that has allowed MS to make a profit ever since they discovered with MS-DOS that people would pay for upgrades as long as it fixed something or looked different. The issue is that, here too, Vista has given that promise viability a serious dent. Well, without some volume deployment you will not find out where they screwed up this time, put another way, leave that all important hook to sell you the NEXT version. So that report is concluding something without any factual basis.

    Well, I think XP will be installed here a little while longer. And when supports ends it's a question if it will be Windows again. It could be Linux (some retraining required) or OSX (hardware costs, and not enough depth behind the interface - we`d like the control ourselves, Jobs, thanks). And OpenOffice, as I rather lose productivity once at the start of the day to start it up than the whole day because I have to figure out where they put all the functionality in Office 2007. If the argument for not moving to Linux is "that it looks different" I would be intrigued to see how Office 2007 was defended.

    Oh, and Gartner? Well, that doesn't need much more discussion now, does it?

  • by viralMeme (1461143) on Sunday May 17, 2009 @07:59AM (#27985931)
    How about advising them to skip Windows 7 and migrating to Apple - Mac OS X Leopard or a Linux Desktop, or isn't anyone paying them to say that?
  • AM I the only one (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Cisco Kid (31490) on Sunday May 17, 2009 @09:37AM (#27986219)

    MS has not had time since they released Vista to write an entirely new OS.

    "Windows 7" *IS* Vista with a different name and and an eye-candy face lift.

    --

    Microsoft-free since 1995

news: gotcha

Working...