Microsoft is hard at work trying to battle the public and businesses’ perception about Windows Vista. They already published a whitepaper named “Five Misunderstood Features in Windows Vista“, detailing some of what they believe are misunderstandings. Now, they also published a document wit five reasons to deploy Windows Vista – and why you shouldn’t wait for Windows 7.The five reasons are your usual marketing speak concerning Vista; stability, security, productivity, mobility, and so on. However, there’s also an interesting chapter on Windows 7. The gist? Moving to Windows Vista now will ease the migration to Windows 7 once it’s released.
There is no need to wait for Windows 7. It is a goal of the
Windows 7 release to minimize application compatibility for customers who have deployed Windows Vista since there was considerable kernel and device level innovation in Windows Vista. The Windows 7 release is expected to have only minor changes in these areas. Customers who are still using Windows XP when Windows 7 releases will have a similar application compatibility experience moving to Windows 7 as exists moving to Windows Vista from Windows XP.
Here we have Microsoft reiterating that Windows 7 will not contain any massive changes, and that it will build on top of the foundations laid by Windows Vista, improving them. Interestingly, the recent rumours concerning Apple’s next release seem to point at the same route: stabilisation and optimisation. Assuming those rumours hold any water, we might be looking at some sort of truce between the two competitors.
Probably not meant as such, but interesting nonetheless, as it gives the rest of the market (like Linux, BSD) the time to catch up – or move ahead – on the desktop side of things.
Microsoft has been defending Vista quite a lot recently. They keep releasing these announcements and brochures that explain why you are wrong if you avoid Vista, or why Vista is better than XP or why it is better than Linux or or..
During the first year of Windows XP, updates were
released 26 times. Through a combination of a month-
ly release schedule and decreased vulnerabilities,
Windows Vista needed updates released only nine
times in its first year.
Why compare Vista to when XP was released? Well, to make the numbers look good. They are probably hoping people will not notice they are not comparing to XP SP2/SP3 which is more or less just as secure as Vista nowadays. XP has always supported users running as non-admins too, and in all those years that XP has been around people have come up with various kinds of 3rd part software to remedy the shortcomings in XP or to improve some features even more. There really isn’t anything there that Vista provides that isn’t possible under XP too.
Bitlocker? Well, do a google search. You’ll find dozens of apps for XP that allow for harddrive encryption, either partially or fully.
that â€œorganizations actively employing power management functionality can expect to save $38.3 thou-
sand per year compared to unmanaged ones (based on the number of new machines).â€ In addition, â€œtotal
PC power consumption per year for a well-managed 2,500 PC strong organization is 50 percent lower than
for an unmanaged oneâ€ according to the same Gartner Report
Well duh. But XP does support power-management, too.
There is also talk about the Windows Search. I have never used it nor seen it in use, but I imagine the Google Desktop search and similar are more or less just as good for those people who need such features.
I dunno, I don’t run a company nor do I work as an administrator, but I get the feeling there really isn’t any specially good reason for companies to migrate to Vista. I hear the remote deploy features are better, but is that good enough of a reason? Most companies have everything needed for XP already in place, any additional software, everything has been tested and proven during all those years Vista was in development..