Swingman wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message

Actually there is a little more to it than that. Aside from a few
cosmetic changes and some arguable improvements to security, there is
little to justify the cost of transition from the existing operating
system
to Vista. Previous Windows versions could claim improved
interoperability,
improved ability to self-identify and install peripherals, or improved
autodetection of network settings and self-attachment to networks
compared
to the previous version. Windows Vista has no such improvements that
provide a business case for accepting the cost and pain of migrating from
XP to Vista.

You have to be kidding? And just how long you been running Vista?


I'm not, after reading numerous sources, I upgraded to linux. My employer
is currently evaluating Vista, but has no immediate plans to transition
because of the numerous issues with Vista.


... "arguable improvements to security"?; "no improved detection of
network setting"?; a lack of "interoperability""; That's incredulous ...
let's see how long XP lasts in an ipv6/DHCPv6/PPPv6/IPv6 Mobility world,
so much for broadband wireless/3G under XP.

You aren't reading what I was saying. My point was that each of the other
OS upgrades, 95 to 98, 98 to 2000 (let's skip ME), 2000 to XP each brought
a demonstrable improvement either to operability, inter-operability, or
peripheral detection to the table, making a business case for improved
supportability or reduced support costs. Vista, aside from some eye candy
but carrying a whole lot of DRM nastiness, doesn't bring that kind of
improvement with it. Yes, Vista does all those things I listed, but it
does them no better (and in some cases right now because of driver issues,
does them much worse) than the existing OS (XP). Making a business case
for widespread adoption of Vista is a tough sell; it makes an even tougher
sell when, to do the same things that XP does right now with the same user
experience vis a vis response times, requires greatly increased hardware
resources.



AAMOF, the current state of the OS, drivers, and other third
party software actually argue against such a business case

? Did you even bother to read what you replied to?


Yes I did, I might ask the same of you. It was that snarky end comment
how the folks dissing Vista were somehow showing ignorance. Take a browse
through Infoworld or other trades, there is significant discussion
regarding Vista, take a look at
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html regarding the
world of DRM that Vista carries with it. The people raising flags here are
far from ignorant. Right now, about the only case people are making *for*
Vista are the fact that Msoft is going to stop selling XP, and that in a
year or so, drivers will catch up, and that it's OK that Vista uses more
resources to provide the same experience since computer hardware is
constantly improving and people are going to upgrade hardware anyway.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough