Comments on: Windows XP vs. Windows Vista – Future proofing

By: Jack

Jack — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 22:36:19 +0000

I can see no reason to buy a new hammer with a red handle to do the same stuff I can do with my old hammer I have been using for years.
Do we really need a new system to write a memo, prepare a report or a presentation? And money spent on a new system and new hardware to run it can be used for other purposes (especially now).

By: Gabe

Gabe — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:03:34 +0000

Windows Vista just LOOKS cool and fancy, but Windows XP USE TO look cool and fancy, but no longer. But Windows XP is so much faster, and so much easier to use.
I actually prefer Windows XP

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:09:38 +0000

I disagree. Skipping a generation is easy in many fields of IT. Vista simply isn’t good enough and XP users who stick with it ’til 2014 will have no issues moving to Windows 7; perhaps that will actually be the revolution Microsoft SHOULD have delivered this time – instead of a bloated, MAC OS X copy. Hopefully, be that time, Linux/Google or whoever will have finally got a mainstream ready alternative OS ready to do to Windows what Firefox did to IE6 – force Microsoft to pull their fingers out and make something better!

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 27 May 2008 08:46:58 +0000

Sue, oh well Macs are nice too, especially for small companies. I think it is okay that there is at least some competition on the desktop now. Let’s see how long Apple can hold out this time. They always have their ups and downs.

By: Sue

Sue — Thu, 22 May 2008 23:59:21 +0000

I agree also. I’m in the minority at my company, which decided, rather than supporting Vista, to go to an all Mac platform. Talk about a learning curve! Of course, I was an early Vista adopter.

By: Vista being adopted faster than XP? | Ed Bott’s Windows Expertise |

Thu, 22 May 2008 22:54:59 +0000

[...] Michael at 4Sysops finds an interesting data point: In a report issued last month, Gartner said Vista adoption among businesses is in line with that of XP at a comparable juncture after its release, and predicted Vista will have an installed base of 21.3 percent by year’s end, compared to 16.9 percent for XP in 2003. [...]

By: joe

joe — Thu, 22 May 2008 17:57:53 +0000

I have to agree. I am pretty much sick of the bandwagon garbage said about vista. We have started to deploy vista already (not done like some other people) and we have had pretty much no problems at all, had a few problems with some legacy software. It seems people are a bit uninformed.

From an IT perspective having to develop methods to deploy OS’s I have found one aspect of vista/2008 to be VERY significant. That feature is when you sysprep a vista/2008 OS it makes a HAL-independent image. For those that don’t know what that means, it means that I no longer have to keep seperate images for each of the hardware platforms that I use. I can have one image for laptops, workstations, different models of workstations, etc. This is not only an huge administrative plus but also a very nice size savings on my storage (plus windows deployment services de-dups your images).

If people would just let go of the negative hype vista gets I think they would find many benefits to deploying it. On another note, the only people that I know that don’t like vista haven’t tried it, or when they did they didn’t give it a chance and quickly went back to XP. Of course there are changes, of course it’s heavier. Most new software releases doesn’t remove features and doesn’t make the UI more ugly!