There's a dirty little secret that's extremely unfashionable to say but is completely and utterly true: Vista isn't that bad.
The problem with Vista is that it was bloated, didn't add much of value over XP and was initially MS forced it to be rolled out on low-end machines that couldn't handle it. Hardware support was initially flaky too, adding problems for the tech-savvy crowd who also were underwhelmed considering its long development cycle. All these things gave it a bad reputation, especially as the good largely didn't make up for the bad.
Windows 7 will likely be appreciated, even if it's not a radical change from Vista. Access control should have settled down now it's been introduced to developers and MS have got its act together to make it less annoying. Since there's no driver changes, it's no longer an issue. It'll likely not be significantly slower than Vista. Everyone loves eye-candy, and hopefully Microsoft have added another layer of sheen to Vista's above-par sleekness and removed the inconsistencies left from XP, integrated everything together better, added some niceties and improved the UI a bit. I don't think a huge departure is needed, just a lot of tidying up.
Oh, and having an upgrade path doesn't really matter to most people - people tend to buy new PCs that'll come with it and most of those running XP won't be able to handle Windows 7 anyhow.
Your post may be entirely true, but it's conspicuously missing a reason to spend $150 for something that "isn't that bad". Particularly if I'm a business, and the true cost of switching (measured in IT time) is way, way larger than $150.
"Windows 7 will likely not be significantly slower than Vista?" Wow, what a great selling point. "Everyone loves eye candy and UI improvements?" Perhaps -- but those who do have bought Macs already. "Now with better access control support?" Gosh, that's what I really hate about XP -- it doesn't have enough DRM to slow down my machine and lock me out of my own data!
The best selling point for Vista would probably be security. But Microsoft seems oddly reluctant to play the "switch to Windows 7 because our earlier products are so riddled with flaws that they put your life at risk" card. ;)
(I should point out that I'm joking -- I'm no security expert, and in fact I'm not sure that XP is really that much less secure than Vista. And that, itself, is part of Vista's marketing problem, isn't it?)
Most people don't spend $150 on an OS, they get it "free" with their PC.
The business sector, as it is, inevitably upgrade to whatever Microsoft puts out once they pull support on old versions of their OS. Microsoft have basically no competition in the business sector - they're pretty much only competing with themselves.
A large proportion of people dislike like Vista because they've either heard it's bad or have had bad experiences using it on low-spec computers. This is unlikely to happen with Windows 7, especially considering improvements in computer speed in the meantime.
Apple products make up around 10-15% of the market in the west and much, much less worldwide - a relative minority. People like pretty things whether or not they own, or can own, a Mac.
"Access control" isn't DRM, it's a security decision, and actually a good thing that had to be introduced into Windows eventually to improve its much-criticised security model. There was always going to be some criticism over it.
Microsoft don't need to make a great product, just a better one. Their product is the natural upgrade path, they just need to create a "Windows 7 fixes the problems with Vista" message which looks like the direction they are going.
The business sector, as it is, inevitably upgrade to whatever Microsoft puts out once they pull support on old versions of their OS.
I agree with this. And, yet... once you cross the line from nominally working for your customers to overtly extorting money from them, you can't go back.
So I doubt that Microsoft will pull support for XP until the demand is gone. And the demand won't be gone until there's a real reason to upgrade to Windows 7. A "Windows 7 fixes the problems with Vista" marketing message will be nice and everything, but I'm guessing that IT departments will not be easily fooled. They've heard a lot of marketing doubletalk; they're pretty used to it by now. They will have to have to be given actual reasons before they will switch.
If you think that it's "inevitable" that XP will eventually be retired... I know some Cobol programmers that I could introduce you to. ;) Not that I believe that XP will last as long as Cobol. I find it hard to believe that it could possibly be supported for much longer than another decade.
There's a dirty little secret that's extremely unfashionable to say but is completely and utterly true: Vista isn't that necessary.
As an Operating System, XP firmly falls into the 'good enough' category. At 7 years old, it's actually matured into a reasonably solid product that works. If you run Windows 2000 on modern hardware (providing you can get driver support) you'll find it runs like shit off a shovel. I'm not talking Office 2003 versus 2007 fast, I'm talking Windows 3.1 versus Windows Vista fast.
Therein lies the problem.
Microsoft have the unenviable task of pandering to a massively diverse range of users in order to retain market share, anything that they do to XP will piss off at least a minority. Anything that they fail to do to XP will piss off at least a minority.
Pretty much the only option for Microsoft in terms of releasing a new Operating System is to add features, but doing so without slowing the OS down is a massive challenge.
I don't believe that Vista will ever be considered a success by anyone outside of Redmond, but I do think that Windows 7 will do better simply because of the timescales involved and the fact that it's not Vista.
This is the odd thing - you seem to be trying to disagree with me yet we agree almost completely on everything, except that "Vista isn't that necessary" seems to be an extremely fashionable thing to say.
Comments
There's a dirty little secret that's extremely unfashionable to say but is completely and utterly true: Vista isn't that bad.
The problem with Vista is that it was bloated, didn't add much of value over XP and was initially MS forced it to be rolled out on low-end machines that couldn't handle it. Hardware support was initially flaky too, adding problems for the tech-savvy crowd who also were underwhelmed considering its long development cycle. All these things gave it a bad reputation, especially as the good largely didn't make up for the bad.
Windows 7 will likely be appreciated, even if it's not a radical change from Vista. Access control should have settled down now it's been introduced to developers and MS have got its act together to make it less annoying. Since there's no driver changes, it's no longer an issue. It'll likely not be significantly slower than Vista. Everyone loves eye-candy, and hopefully Microsoft have added another layer of sheen to Vista's above-par sleekness and removed the inconsistencies left from XP, integrated everything together better, added some niceties and improved the UI a bit. I don't think a huge departure is needed, just a lot of tidying up.
Oh, and having an upgrade path doesn't really matter to most people - people tend to buy new PCs that'll come with it and most of those running XP won't be able to handle Windows 7 anyhow.
Your post may be entirely true, but it's conspicuously missing a reason to spend $150 for something that "isn't that bad". Particularly if I'm a business, and the true cost of switching (measured in IT time) is way, way larger than $150.
"Windows 7 will likely not be significantly slower than Vista?" Wow, what a great selling point. "Everyone loves eye candy and UI improvements?" Perhaps -- but those who do have bought Macs already. "Now with better access control support?" Gosh, that's what I really hate about XP -- it doesn't have enough DRM to slow down my machine and lock me out of my own data!
The best selling point for Vista would probably be security. But Microsoft seems oddly reluctant to play the "switch to Windows 7 because our earlier products are so riddled with flaws that they put your life at risk" card. ;)
(I should point out that I'm joking -- I'm no security expert, and in fact I'm not sure that XP is really that much less secure than Vista. And that, itself, is part of Vista's marketing problem, isn't it?)
Most people don't spend $150 on an OS, they get it "free" with their PC.
The business sector, as it is, inevitably upgrade to whatever Microsoft puts out once they pull support on old versions of their OS. Microsoft have basically no competition in the business sector - they're pretty much only competing with themselves.
A large proportion of people dislike like Vista because they've either heard it's bad or have had bad experiences using it on low-spec computers. This is unlikely to happen with Windows 7, especially considering improvements in computer speed in the meantime.
Apple products make up around 10-15% of the market in the west and much, much less worldwide - a relative minority. People like pretty things whether or not they own, or can own, a Mac.
"Access control" isn't DRM, it's a security decision, and actually a good thing that had to be introduced into Windows eventually to improve its much-criticised security model. There was always going to be some criticism over it.
Microsoft don't need to make a great product, just a better one. Their product is the natural upgrade path, they just need to create a "Windows 7 fixes the problems with Vista" message which looks like the direction they are going.
The business sector, as it is, inevitably upgrade to whatever Microsoft puts out once they pull support on old versions of their OS.
I agree with this. And, yet... once you cross the line from nominally working for your customers to overtly extorting money from them, you can't go back.
So I doubt that Microsoft will pull support for XP until the demand is gone. And the demand won't be gone until there's a real reason to upgrade to Windows 7. A "Windows 7 fixes the problems with Vista" marketing message will be nice and everything, but I'm guessing that IT departments will not be easily fooled. They've heard a lot of marketing doubletalk; they're pretty used to it by now. They will have to have to be given actual reasons before they will switch.
If you think that it's "inevitable" that XP will eventually be retired... I know some Cobol programmers that I could introduce you to. ;) Not that I believe that XP will last as long as Cobol. I find it hard to believe that it could possibly be supported for much longer than another decade.
There's a dirty little secret that's extremely unfashionable to say but is completely and utterly true: Vista isn't that necessary.
As an Operating System, XP firmly falls into the 'good enough' category. At 7 years old, it's actually matured into a reasonably solid product that works. If you run Windows 2000 on modern hardware (providing you can get driver support) you'll find it runs like shit off a shovel. I'm not talking Office 2003 versus 2007 fast, I'm talking Windows 3.1 versus Windows Vista fast.
Therein lies the problem.
Microsoft have the unenviable task of pandering to a massively diverse range of users in order to retain market share, anything that they do to XP will piss off at least a minority. Anything that they fail to do to XP will piss off at least a minority.
Pretty much the only option for Microsoft in terms of releasing a new Operating System is to add features, but doing so without slowing the OS down is a massive challenge.
I don't believe that Vista will ever be considered a success by anyone outside of Redmond, but I do think that Windows 7 will do better simply because of the timescales involved and the fact that it's not Vista.
This is the odd thing - you seem to be trying to disagree with me yet we agree almost completely on everything, except that "Vista isn't that necessary" seems to be an extremely fashionable thing to say.