Vista has landed! But it won't take off
Tags: microsoft, vista, windows xp, windows vista
After what seems like aeons, Vista has finally gone on sale -- but only to business users. So does that mean you and your co-workers will be all Vista'd up in time for Christmas? Will the talk of the office party be how much Vista Business has increased productivity and morale, or will it simply be the usual form of getting drunk, groping your boss, then going home to bitch about how XP is a load of rubbish?
Probably the latter -- there's very little chance your company, or ours for that matter, will adopt Vista any time soon. And for good reason; there's a lot to lose by rushing headlong into an OS that's completely unproven, that will require massive financial investment and comes from a software designer with several OS flops to its name. Windows ME, anyone?
The total cost of switching to Vista is difficult enough for Joe Public to swallow, let alone a money-conscious MD, to whom a new Lamborghini is of far more importance than upgrading from Windows XP. Most of us will need a brand new PC costing somewhere in the region of £1,000 to be Vista-ready. Then there's the cost of the OS itself -- $399 (£205) for Vista Ultimate, or $299 (£154) for Vista Business. Then there's the software -- you're going to want new versions of Microsoft Office $499 (£255), not to mention new antivirus apps and new versions of programs that currently only run on Windows XP.
That's around £1,500 per new Vista machine, which doesn't include the cost of making changes to your server infrastructure and support costs -- your MD's going to love that.
Microsoft, naturally, says it's worth companies overhauling their IT infrastructure for Vista. It says, "For the IT professional, Windows Vista is easier to deploy, and less expensive to maintain, than any earlier version of Windows. And for your end users, Windows Vista's improved performance and reliability add value by allowing people to be more effective while performing their jobs."
The first half of that argument is probably valid, but the second half -- that twaddle about how Vista's improved performance and reliability will make us more effective -- has to be nonsense. We've used Vista, and haven't seen much in it that'll help us send an email or open a Word document any quicker.
Don't get us wrong -- we really like Vista. It's better than XP, possibly better than Apple OS X, and it has a wealth of funky new features. We just don't think you should get your hopes up about seeing it in your workplace any time soon -- not as long as your MD has his eye on that new set of wheels. -RR
- Share this article:
RELATED LINKS
Drunk emailing? Mail Goggles to the rescue
Microsoft CEO Ballmer: Zune for Windows Mobile
'Oops I'm Late' app covers for you
AnonymousThu 30 November, 2006 2:41pm
The picture used for the article is totally right. Microsoft is this generation terminally ill IBM. As them, they are bloated, out of touch, blatantly greedy (Vista being money saver? PLEEAASE) and amazingly incompetent: look at Zune. Pretty much all that Microzune is capable of doing and wrong-doing today.
AnonymousThu 30 November, 2006 4:54pm
I just talked to our IT guys at the place where I work. We upgrade on a six year cycle for financial reasons. What about agencies and companies who already have their budgets fixed? Or ones that can be cut during the year? No, we won't be upgrading to Vista for a LLLOOOONNNGGG time for financial reasons if nothing else.
Peter NorthFri 1 December, 2006 9:02am
You obviously have never used OS X have you?
The thought of Microsoft's Windows Vista being
possibly "Better than Apple's Mac OS X" is as ill
conceived as thinking that the Iraq war would
be a good idea and a cakewalk. Vista comes
as close to OS X as the Zune MP3 player is to
the iPod. A pale imitation? For sure. Close
in any way to the real Apple product? Not a chance.
Roger HarrisFri 1 December, 2006 1:59pm
I think Vista will be far better than XP, but I also think the earlier comparison between Zune and the iPod will be on the mark when compairing OSX and Vista. Having said that; OSX superiority won't make any difference in offices.
roger
RJSun 3 December, 2006 6:50pm
Another Windows, Microsoft has been pushing the whole Direct X thing for gamers and the ease of productivity for businesses. Companies won't be upgrading for a while because of the costs involved. And end-users won't be upgrading until it's time for a new machine.
G RobertsWed 6 December, 2006 2:33am
I don't understand the logic of releasing it to businesses first, as they tend to be the most conservative when it comes to upgrades. The company I work for (one of the UK's largest employers) is only just coming to the end of a project to replace Windows NT with XP - I've only had XP at work for just over a month. The primary motivation for companies to upgrade is when products become unsupported, as NT has.
AnonymousTue 2 January, 2007 3:30am
Rory why is Vista better than OS X? I haven't tried Vista (for obvious reasons) but I've seen some demos and so far I haven't found anything in Vista that makes it better than Mac OS X 10.4 (and I've used this one a lot though I'm not a mac user)
Ask questions, share opinions and find answers in the CNET.co.uk forums
6.6
7.9
AnonymousThu 30 November, 2006 12:58pm
Can't be bothered to argue the toss about the general tone of the argument, but I can assure you no corporate user in the UK pays anything like £1000 per PC.
Try £c600 INCLUDING a shiny copy of Vista, or possibly £500 sans O/S and appox £100 per licence on the corporate plan?
Dell will be flogging Desktops with Vista automatic upgrades to SMEs for this price any time now, so NatWest et al will be paying a lot less.