This is an open door or opportunity for other operating systems to get noticed and used. One of these is ReactOS. http://www.reactos.org It is an open source free clone of WinNT. Another is eComStation. http://www.ecomstation.com It is a newer version of IBM's OS/2 Warp. It is worth checking out. There are others out there. It is just a matter of looking. http://www.osnews.com :)

Ok, we get it. Vista sucks according to the majority of people. Can we just move on with our lives instead of getting a repeat of "vista sucks" articles every day?

4 out of 5 articles I read every day now are iphone, vista sucking, and apple being crafted by God the greatest company ever to be created.

Sarcasm intended, but you get my point.

Sooo... "83% said that they are concerned about the compatibility of required business software with Vista" and at the same time "42% of IT administrator respondents said they would consider deployment of alternative operating systems, such as Mac OS and Linux, in order to avoid a migration to Vista".

Meaning, if my business app which currently runs XP won't run on Vista it has higher chances to ron on OS X or Linux? They've either shown these questions to kids and not IT admins in this survey, or the results are laregly skewed

It seems sort of stupid to me that IT admins who are worried about incompatibility issues if they switch to Vista, are considering a switch instead to Mac OSX or Linux. Don't they know they will have to rebuy all the software that will be incompatible when they switch from windows to one of these 2 alternatives? I am an IT admin and have been using Vista since the beginning of the summer and I have had no compatibility issues with using software that was designed for XP. Oh yah and I also support Red Hat 3,4 and 5 and if they thought they had issues with compatibility with there switch to Vista get ready for a whole slew of compatibility issues with Linux...thats if they can even find alternatives to the software they once used in windows.

I think the main problem with the switch to Vista in the IT field is that many admins are on tight budgets and cant afford to upgrade there machines to be compatible with Vista. Its not that they dislike the operating system they just cant afford to upgrade. When I worked in my highschools IT department this was the problem when we made the switch to XP. People are bound to disagree with me but this has been my personal experience in the IT field.

The biggest mistake MS seems to have made in this debacle is that in the midst of everyone making rampant complaints about how hard it was to adapt Vista, MS decided to try and calm these complaints by saying, "don't worry, we'll have a better and smaller form factor OS out by the end of 2009 or early 2010".

Now, no one plans to switch to Vista because they see no problem with skating by on XP another year or two to see what the next OS brings. Then if that version is bad they will have a decision to make.

They have no plans to upgrade an older OS to Vista.. OK, but what about new PCs..? We haven't been "upgrading" many either. But new PCs, could we downgrade to XP? Sure. Do we? Rarely. If the IT departments surveyed are anything like mine, they've been testing vista for about a year and a half now, and know what is compatible and what is not. They also know it is more secure than XP and that compatibility issues are severely blown out of proportion. 99% of the time I've found if it ran in XP it runs in Vista, ESPECIALLY business software. Compatibility mode and Run as Administrator take care of most issues quite nicely. We have programs that were developed in house in __1997__ that run with no issues on Vista. Switching to ANOTHER OS because of compatibility issues with XP is a terrible and expensive business move. Businesses by nature resist change, and this is no exception, but XP>Vista is a FAR easier change than XP>Anything else. Anyone who says differently is either ignorant, lying, or quite simply hasn't fully thought it through.

Vista requires a beefier machine than XP. Thats the bottom line. Switching to OSX would require alot of expensive new hardware so thats not gonna happen either. Switching to Linux would cause a massive user revolt because face it users don't like radical change. So whats gonna happen is a gradual migration to vista, or people will just see what windows 7 is like.

If 83% of IT professionals said that they are concerned about compatibility wouldn't changing to another OS really set them back? Doesn't make sense that 42% of them would consider another OS and be really worried about compatibility issues.

I am an IT professional in the airline industry where right now, all the money goes towards FAA compliance and maintaining profitability. So something else to add is the cost of upgrading to Vista. Replace most of the desktop hardware... Replace half of the server hardware... Replace ALL of the client access licenses from your Windows 2003 Server since they don't transfer to 2008.
Also, we have found in testing that using Vista requires upgrading several other software systems to versions that are not yet FAA compliant. So compliance to non-IT standards is also something to consider.
I think the reason IT is willing to jump ship from Vista to another platform is because we believe that moving our operation to another platform may be the best bet for future compatibility, even if it means changing how our systems work today. If I decide to go to Mac tomorrow, I know, for example that the systems I run on Mac now have a higher probability of still being compatible with Mac years down the line. With Windows I do not see that continued trend.

I think the poster above is right. Many would love to upgrade but tight budgets prevent them from upgrading. I know where I work, most of the computers that run XP would probably struggle to run Vista. We just don't have the money to upgrade all the computers and buy all those licenses to upgrade.

Thanks for making Vista such a horrible product, and then cutting off sales of Windows XP with new computers.

Our customers are buying computers from us like crazy these days, because we take the time to downgrade them to XP Pro.

Please guys, enough with the 'hardware issues' excuse, every one of these machines we're selling are dual-core powerhouses with gigs of memory, decent video cards, and large fast SATA-II drives.

They could run Vista easily.

But our customers simply don't want it.

The business customers don't want it, the home users don't want it. There isn't one single feature of Vista that would make them want to switch. It's slower in every aspect, games run slower, applications run slower, it takes far longer to boot up (our machines start up in 35 seconds flat, from power button to surfing the web in Firefox), it isn't any more secure than a properly secured Windows XP box, and everyone HATES the stupid UAC.

Vista, the worst operating system in the history of computers next to Windows ME.

"Vista, the worst operating system in the history of computers next to Windows ME."

You do understand that Windows ME was unstable? Not because it's different. Try to compare apples to apples.

Business customer's want Vista. With the security 100X better than XP, they want to adopt. But just like the comments above it comes down to budgets. Just like the upgrades from Windows 98 to XP. Everybody had growing pains of saying that you need more RAM and bigger hard drives and better proc. It was the same issue before.

"it isn't any more secure than a properly secured Windows XP box, and everyone HATES the stupid UAC."

Obviously you do know that is incorrect. The UAC is supposed to prompt users to make sure they are making the commands so that the Adware/Spyware doesn't take over the system.

I have just installed Ultimate x64 SP1 and my boot time is

IT managers don't change OS's in good finance times let alone slow ones. Hell I still know many IT managers that don't want to upgrade win2K to XP for crying out loud. I don't like Vista that much but I wouldn't put much stock in this "survey".

Headward's Computer must have crashed mid sentence.

- "I have just installed Ultimate x64 SP1 and my boot time is"

**BLUE SCREEN**

Vista isn't bad. Then again, it isn't great either. It's not an improvement over XP in what matters, and that's performance--plus it takes more resources to do the same thing AND is slower. Where's the advantage again?

I do have to say that UAC is the single most retarded feature ever produced in an OS. It costs more in time than it will ever save fighting malware.

I know many people have said that Me was unstable, but I ran it on a PIII machine for 7 years with absolutely no problem. In fact, it still works...Apparently I'm in the minority on that.

Here's an exercise for you:

1) Do a search for 'XP Corporate adoption'
2) Read the articles that come up
3) Compare them to the ones being written now
4) Marvel at the similarities.

The things people do for clicks, eh?

No more keeping track of CALs. Security is much less of an issue. We have much more time to improve our in house software. We get far better outside support than we had for Microsoft products.

We use Linux and BSD server side. We use Mac for the desktop. Things might get a bit crazy during the transition, however once you make the switch your IT department will have a hard time finding things to do.

We do have some people who choose to use MS Office (I would love to upgrade them to NeoOffice however it is their choice). I think some of our people may use a MS platform to play games at home.

I've been on Vista since the beta releases, I optimise my computer to have minimum programs running starting on startup (as most people should) and on the original RC1 of Vista, back when it was it's slowest, I got windows fully loaded from boot startup within 35 seconds and that was running on a 2.8ghz CELERON D, with 2gb of REALLY HIGH latency DDR400 ram, what the hell is everyone complaining about?

I'm running it now on a Athlon X2 6000 Processor with 4gb of Corsair ram DDR800 with a nice latency of 4-4-4-12 and my boot time from pressing the on button is under 20 seconds and a shut down of less than 6 seconds, programs open instantly, and my computer is very secure. I also after a few tweaks to the programs themselves setup was able to make video games from 1995 that XP and ME struggle to run correctly, run the video games perfectly.

The only reason I can see it not worth the upgrade is installing on many computers can be a long time consuming and very boring process, luckily that's why they created Vlite where you can get it to do the install skipping all the steps and you can go walk off and do something more productive.

Personally if I could I would change to Linux, but until the gaming market opens up a bit more to Linux I have no choice but stick with Microsoft or play console games. Corporates need to get over their lame excuses, cost and time are the only real reasons, the operating system has flaws, but that's because XP has had what, 3 (or is it 2, haven't really looked if the 3rd has been released) services packs and an unimaginable amount of updates and it's still full of flaws.

Changing over to Mac as an alternative, I find that a waste of time, I personally own a macbook and countless ipods and Mac accessories, on the macbook, I run Vista, because, put simply "Mac OS doesn't work". What all the adverts and the Mac lovers pay Mac OS to be, was one of the most horrible times I've had in my life, what idiot thought of the one click mouse and the one click notebook button, even in Mac OS I need both clicks and the programs are too "friendly" some people might like that.... but it's a shocking experience for anyone with a little knowledge of how to use computers, if I gave my parents my macbook loaded on OS X with all the getting started gear, after around 20 minutes I'd come back to a broken laptop because the software's layout is inconveinent and it's hard to implement such a great change to people's lifestyles when most people won't take a change in that direction. I expected more from Apple, I wont make this mistake again. I'm not an Apple Hater, because I do love my Ipod Touch and my Macbook... when it's running Vista.

Bottomline: I hate Microsoft, but Vista serves it's purpose and is worth the upgrade and Mac OS is not what it's cracked up to be, Ubuntu for the win.

"We use Linux and BSD server side. We use Mac for the desktop. Things might get a bit crazy during the transition, however once you make the switch your IT department will have a hard time finding things to do."

I call BS on that one. Not if they are any good, they won't have any trouble finding things to do. None. We have a mixed network and have approximately HALF the number Macs as PCs, and, guess what, I spend nearly as much time working on the half that are Macs as I do on the PCs. Working on an ALL OS X or Unix network you MIGHT have a point, but good luck completely abolishing Windows from your workplace... Some pro level software doesn't have Mac or *nix alternatives. AutoCAD anyone? Good luck. And no, parallels/fusion is not a solution, don't go there.

And lower cost? Is that a joke?
Let's put this in perspective... Things break. They have to be fixed. Some things need upgraded even so don't get me started on the iMac. It's usually older equipment that dies, bathtub curve ya know? The new stuff's warrantied we'll leave it out.

2.0Ghz G5 processor? $400, if you can find one.
3.0Ghz Pentium D.. $100, easy to find.

Ever replaced a power supply in a G5? $300. For a 710W Lite-On? No thanks.
Something like a Thermaltake Toughpower 700W can be had for under $150.

Anyhow I'm rambling, but I quite simply wholeheartedly disagree with you.

I won't embarrass the person who posted "Business customer's want Vista", but that's not true.

With Norton Antivirus or AVG, you have the security in Windows XP that is comparable to Vista. Microsoft dropped the ball a long time ago on security, anti-virus and malware. So nobody trusts or needs Microsoft to 'secure the OS'. They've failed too long to be a consideration.

The fact that Microsoft ditched Windows XP and Media Center Edition of XP is the MAIN reason people *hate* Microsoft.

They are not to be trusted; that's based on their lack of action on security, and abandoning XP.

Service Pack 3 for XP was a joke. How many bad jokes do we have to endure?

BPony - you're comment does remind me of when BGates was demoing 95 and it BSOD on him.

What is interesting I did have another paragraph going on about the boot time being

Why are my comments being cut off?

No reasons for not upgrading are given, and the author is left to insinuate that Vista is bad, probably because that's the party line these days.
Second, so what if I (IT Manager) wants to switch to Vista? The last time I checked, I answered to a CTO, CEO, CFO, and COO. Unless THEY want to switch, its never going to happen.

well guess anyone can step up if they have a stable os, but mac still seems more geared towards development and not buisness truth is mac is more stable of an os os x 10 is amazing and there only getting better, while windows is clinging on it's huge install base as reason to upgrade because of how familiar it is *sigh just go away ms, sony rules mature gaming and hd, apple rules computing, nintendo rules kiddy and casual, and ms rules nothing un innovative lame company who just steals idea and takes them as far as they need to seem original, as mr jobbs said they have no taste and judging by windows they have no programing skills either lol die ms die!

wawdaaaaaaaa

I am so glad Microsoft is forcing their upgrade on everyone. It just gives them that much worse of a image. It's like Toyota saying to all their customers, listen we are only selling the car with the faulty dashboard we are giving you no other options.

Everyone should just switch to Mac OS X or Ubuntu now. I have been using and building computers for 10 years now (since I was 17) and I just started using Ubuntu a year ago and just last week OS X. I had a Vista laptop from January 08' until just last month in June. I wiped Vista off of it because I just could not get used to it's quirks.

OS X has a bit of a learning curve and a few features are missing that XP has and Ubuntu even has a few features that neither XP or Vista have natively (the cube) but switching to Vista versus OS X or Ubuntu will be the same difficulty in transition but in the end your OS will actually work. It will also be more secure. VM Ware Fusion can run your outdated version of XP flawlessly and in Unity mode (seperate mac windows for each app).

Just switch now and go through the learning curve, you will only be happy in the end!

It's simple windows 7 the better operating system. And road mapped to have a much longer life span.

Win ME2 has a win ME life span.

It didn't make since to switch to win ME, when XP was coming hard down the pike.

And it doesn't make since to UPGRADE to vista now.

There is only a little over a year life span left. Let the guinea pigs continue to spend up to $3999 to be open beta purchasers and testers. Windows 7 will be a much more solid product out of the door.

Again I thank all of the beta testers...

It's pretty.

There is a limit to the number of character that can be put on one comment it's not TGDaily or anyone else doing it. It is just a limit that is placed so someone does not try and type in War & Peace in here.

I use WinXP 90% of the time. But I am a Mac system admin. TO say that the MAC OS does not work ,is an admission that you do not know how to use it. Period. Just admit that you do not know how to use it, and are not flexible enough to shift. Actually folks that think this way is why I make the money I do. I move seemlessly between Mac OS and the WIN world. I would rather configure networking on MAC OS 10 than windows anyday. and mac mice right and left click just like any other OS. When I was a newbie to the Windows world I too bleeted like a lost sheep that windows dosn't work. It works when you know how to use it, its a kludge and overly complicated, but I now that I KNOW HOW to USE windows I am used to its quirks and kludges. AS for OS design ILl go with Unix based OS 10 anyday for smoothness and reliability.

I don't think you were directing your comment at me... But I'll clarify myself anyways. OS X does work. It's a good OS. It isn't, in my opinion, any better than Windows. I prefer Windows for two reasons. First, it runs ALL the software I want from Photoshop and InDesign(work & home) to AutoCAD and games (home) and all my Cisco and various other utilities as well as in house software. The second reason being, chances are if I don't like something in Windows -nearly anything- I can CHANGE it, and there is loads of information on how to change it if I feel so inclined, or software that will do it if I am too inept. Same goes for the hardware side of course.

Finally though, the reason I spend more time supporting Macs than PCs boils down to two main things. First, users just don't understand it. They've been using Windows for years, and have difficulty learning a new OS, as many aren't very computer literate at all. Second, Mac's don't always play nice in a mixed network (although I'd probably have to blame the Windows servers for this). We have to resort to Samba, which works for some things, AppleTalk.. which mostly doesn't work.. Or a third-party utility like ExtremeZ-IP. This isn't a bashing of OS X.. probably bashing Windows in fact... But the fact remains, they are NOT self sufficent as Ralf suggested. At least no more so than a well configured Windows install that can be set to maintain itself in the background.

Do you see it like a refrigerator or a performance car? If the refrigerator keeps food cold and not frozen, its great. That's all it ever has to do. That's all anyone ever wants it to do. If you want to tinker, its not something to tinker with. It is what it is, and that is all it will ever be. That is exactly what an Apple is, another home appliance.