Discussion on:

10 things you'll miss when you upgrade to Vista (and how to get some of them back)

Actually Dell is busy selling laptops with Vista Home on them with 512M ram (shared as well for video). I have supported a number of folks with that configuration- DOH! So even Dell can't get it right....(Of course I had to order more RAM from Dell)

On the contrary... I think they have got it right... You said "Of course I had to order more RAM from Dell." The sold a pc with les than the required so you would have to buy more... I think they succeeded.

On the contrary... I think they have got it right... You said "Of course I had to order more RAM from Dell." The sold a pc with les than the required so you would have to buy more... I think they succeeded.

Which part of America is kept working, besides MS, and the publishing industry cranking out work arounds to all the problems VISTA creates?

XP is running out of support Vista isnt, Programs are going to be designed for Vista not XP

I don't know where you are, but, in the real world, not only is XP still solidly supported, but Microsoft's own support for XP is scheduled to last beyond the current cut-off date for Vista!

As for new development, unless & until businesses migrate in sufficient quantity, XP will of necessity hold sway.

Remember what you used before XP? Now, who still uses 3.1, 9x or NT? It will be the next wave.

Not that you should just run out and get it right now, but...If your in the IT field, sometime or other your going to have to use, install, or troubleshoot it.

Not everyone HAS to have the latest and greatest. As said many times "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".

I have a old laptop running Dos 6.2 with Windows 3.1, just because there are 3 programs that will not run on any later platform and provide 'unusual' functions that I can't go into here.

I also am currently posting this on a Pentium 233mhz, 96mb ram, Win98se system that provides my every need - and I only have to reboot once every couple of weeks... never crashes either! Only caveat it the fact that I can't view many online video streams, etc.

I do have a system that dual boots Win2K and XP Pro SP2 for the 'power' operations that I perform, including video, imaging and programming applications.

Will I eventually use Vista? Probably only to test the programs I write for compatibility. It just has no appeal for me, at this time, especially with removal of my ability to truly be in control of the system!

My son-in-law's optical shop recently moved from a DOS 6 system that ran the store system. The vendor stayed with DOS as long as possible because of the low overhead.

My friend's wife works in a bank branch that upgraded from Windows 3.1 to XP only this year.
I found it hard to believe given that this bank announced record profits for the last financial year. I suppose they were planning to upgrade some key software and were forced to upgrade.

I think there are some security reasons and SOX reasons that companies are making the change to XP. It's also a good OS that many companies will find easy to upgrade to and to support now that it's been out a while and most problems have been fixed/solved.

Some people believe that you should be an early adopter if you're in the IT field, so that you can get to grips with it and make it part of your repertoire. I don't see the need. How hard was it to switch from Win2k to WinXP? I found that very painless. I think the benefits of waiting for the service packs far outweighs the advantages of early adoption.

Besides, based on what you've said (I'm virtually a non-PC gamer myself, and I always use third-party software), I don't see the point in splashing out.

Of course, if you're buying new hardware that comes with Vista - that's another thing - but I'd be sure to go for Ultimate edition if I went for Vista at all.

I think you hit part of this on the head ... unless there is a huge backlash against microsoft, and calls to PC manufacturers to provide ONLY XP on a new machine, Microsoft will win in the end.

Microsoft will use their 98% PC Dominance to force Vista onto all of the major resellers.

Force people into using Microsoft's car, Microsoft's gas, Microsoft's oil, and Microsoft's Leather wrapping add-on for the steering wheel ...

This is exactly what microsoft IS doing and why. They can force their os based on past performance, past collusion and power from it, to force manufacturers to provide end users with the Vista os .. which again, has some vastly different mechanisms at work than their previous OS's, but at what cost.

You don't turn a ship moving at 60 knots into a 180 degree turn without adequate clearance .... you don't really stop on a dime, so why is it that microsoft has done this with vista?

because they can.

Even if OEM's do sell you a vista license on a new machine, you can always choose to downgrade your installed OS to XP. (These downgrade rights pertains only to the Business & Ultimate editions of Vista though.)

http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/2/3/d23b9533-169d-4996-b198-7b9d3fe15611/downgrade_chart.doc

I guess we'd have to do a survey, but honestly, how many people reading this forum buy their systems from a certified direct OEM systems builder like Dell, HP, etc? Most of us build are own system and we'll install whatever software we think is best. The downgrade rights are rediculous.

I figure most of the people buying from the manufacturing giants, where most people are getting their Vista from now, fall into distinct groups--none of which would exercise these "downgrade" rights.

The first group are the very late adopters who are just now buying their first PC. They wouldn't care if it is Linux, Vista or Windows (except for the hype they believe from TV--remember, they don't have internet now so their only information is coming from TV, maybe radio, or word-of-mouth).

The second group are the extremely ignorant, in terms of computers systems and O/Ss. These are not much different from the very late adopters. Maybe they are buying the system for their offspring or spouse, maybe they just got on broadband and are now worried about security. These people have no clue and believe everything they hear, about computers, from TV and in all the internet garbage they get in their email box or when they "go on line" through AOL or Yahoo Internet Explorer (like advertisements from Staples, Best Buy and Dell that say that Vista is where it's happening).

The third group are the corporate IT departments who are only doing it because of sweet deals they are getting (otherwise, who would buy new systems with Vista at this point?). It is unlikely that these people would exercise their downgrade rights. How stupid would it look to recommend the purchase of new systems and then waste considerable time downgrading them all only to have to upgrade them back to Vista in the not-too-distant future?

The fourth and last group are people like us. The experimenters, the cautious, the skeptical. Why would we buy a machine (if we bought a pre-assembled machine at all) with Vista just to downgrade. No, we would want to keep the Vista so we can learn how it works, find out where it is broken (so we'd have fuel for forums like these or maybe so that we know the system in order for us to help customers) and keep abreast of what's happening in the the Microsoft part of the world. If we want Microsoft XP, we buy (well some of us, anyway) Microsoft XP.

In conclusion, the downgrade rights of Vista (or any other MS operating system) are totally bogus and not worth the electrons (or paper) they are written on.

* The third group are the corporate IT departments who are only doing it because of sweet deals they are getting (otherwise, who would buy new systems with Vista at this point?). *

Or because there is not cost savings to "Rolling-your-own" when you are buying hundreds, or thousands, of PC's a year.

* It is unlikely that these people would exercise their downgrade rights. How stupid would it look to recommend the purchase of new systems and then waste considerable time downgrading them all only to have to upgrade them back to Vista in the not-too-distant future? *

Or, x number of machines are slated to be be replaced in a planned 3-year (5-year) upgrade cycle and none of your critical Enterprise Apps have been certified against Vista yet.

Why do we always assume that "Your" computing needs are similar/the same as "Mine". Isn't this one of the complaints about MS?

Would I like to say, no thanks, not now, not ever? Yes. But until I can run CADD (with full BIM support), Computer Assisted Facilities Management (CAFM), Computerized Maintenance Management (CMMS), Enterprise Content Management (ECMS), Building Automation and Access Control in a unified Linux based environment, it ain't going to happen.

Nice summary, thanks.

No, I don't. I play with my computers, and herein lies your problem--well, one of them. Another problem might be that you're spending other people's money (unless you happen to personally own the corporations). Although your ass may be on the line, your money and even your time, are probably not. No matter, your arguments are not very logical.

First of all, I think I did mention that corporations would buy computers from the large manufactures because of the "sweet deals" that I can only imagine the big manufacturers are offering (no doubt spurred on by Microsoft). The point is, why would you buy them right when a new OS is coming out, especially if you are just going to immediately downgrade them to Windows XP. Buying systems with XP installed with upgrade rights to Vista is a whole different ball game, of course.

You are buying hundreds of PCs just to turn around and exercise the downgrade rights?! I can't imagine that it would be cost effective, in terms of labor, to buy a bunch of PCs with Vista on them and then downgrade to Windows XP. I can see it only if it is a "sweet deal," and that's exactly what I said. Since you are talking brand new systems, do they even have downgrade rights. Where is the XP license to downgrade to? That, I admit, I haven't looked into.

Aside from that, aren't there PCs available from the big corporate vendors with XP on them if you really need XP? Perhaps you should buy your PCs (as part of your upgrade cycle) with XP and upgrade to Vista when it is appropriate. I'm sure you can swing a deal with Microsoft, especially if you're working with, as you say, hundreds or thousands of PCs. As an alternative, you could change your 3-5 year plan so that it includes some logic as well. Is your plan written in stone? I think it should be rather simple.

Ring, ring..."this is the CIO, I don't think we should purchase PCs with Vista installed at this time because of all the difficulties encountered in a new OS and because of the fact that a lot of our critical software is not compatible with Vista at this time. I recommend that we purchase Vista compatible systems with Windows XP installed as part of our upgrade cycle and then purchase a volume upgrade license to Vista once we are sure that Vista will meet our needs..."

Seems pretty straight forward to me--and logical.

The rest of my posting applies to the people who are obviously building their own systems (or upgrading a previously purchased system) and thus having difficulties with Vista. You obviously don't fall into that category. I need say no more.

The very instatutios you are talking about would be useing Bulk Licences anyway. Those firms don Not usually buy computers full of junk. They buy the computer, than build it themselves. (or via a contractor)
If you work with computers, you would know that. There is no basis for the 'Downgrade' offer. It is just a marketing trick.
As for your comment on the CAD, I am courious on that point also. I've heard absolutly nothing form that comunity. The scilence is, to say the least, very telling. -d

To try and clear up my "logic flaws" let me expand on my comments.

Because we have our own Volume Licensing Agreement with Microsoft, it doesn't matter what OS version our supplier puts on a new machine.

HP, Dell et. al. may not be able to ship machines with empty harddrives because of the terms of their OEM deals with MS, but to Corporate IT they might as well be empty.

The first step in getting a new PC ready for deployment is not to sit down and uninstall unneeded packages, install "Standard" packages and then configure networking support. It is to simply remove the factory partition and install a new one from a pre-configured image that includes all of the organizations software and settings.

Hence, buying machines "now" with Vista is not going to reflect poorly on you Professionally. Not buying needed resources when you need them just because of someone elses new policy will.

As for my problem of spending others peoples money it is worse than that. I work for a Public K-12 school system, so metaphorically, I am spending "Your" money.

And in the intrest of full disclosure, my personal computer at home is a "Self-Built" box running openSUSE 10.2 and I have not intention of buying and installing Vista. Not because of hardware or software issues like those discussed in this forum, but because I don't like MS licensing terms. If they don't trust me, fine. But I will not let them "look" at my hard drive whenever they want just so they can enforce their Draconian EULA.

P.S. dawgit - if you really want my take on the CADD issue I can give it to you via private e-mail, or we can start a new discussion about those type of "Vista Issues".

"P.S. dawgit - if you really want my take on the CADD issue I can give it to you via private e-mail, or we can start a new discussion about those type of "Vista Issues"."

I think that would make an interesting topic for discussion...

Companies that purchase hundreds of PCs are don't care what software comes on the PC. How many companies do you know that actually buy hundreds of PCs and use them as they are out of the box?

The point is they don't. They turn on the pc, and re-image it with their company standard image. It doesn't matter what software comes on the PC because it will be wiped clean anyway.

At our company we have a contract with HP/Compaq, we get new shipments of pcs in every week. They are all immediately re-imaged with our company image and sent on their way. I couldn't even tell you what O/S is on the computer, because I DON'T CARE. It doesn't matter.

That clears it up quite a bit for me. As you can imagine even though I do "work with computers," I do not work for a large corporation and never have. Are you exercising downgrade rights when you re-image all of those new computers or is this something outside the standard licensing streams? I say standard, as in non-corporation licensing, because that seems to be where all the marketing dollars go. I have no doubt that corporations have a whole different licensing scheme that the rest of us are not privy to. It seems that you are simply exercising your large quantity license which includes a new OS for a new system.

What puzzles me is that Microsoft says over and over again, ad nauseum, that the only way to get a license for windows (other than buying the full retail package, which corporations, it would seem, would not normally do) is to purchase a new computer with an OEM version of windows installed. Microsoft adds that volume licensing is simply for upgrade licenses not for the original. In the scenario where a corporate IT department buys new PCs with Vista installed, and then re-images them to, say, Windows XP, have they already or do you purchase a new license for that new system? I don't see how this is really exercising downgrade rights. Somehow I thought that downgrade rights were, if you installed, say, Vista on a system that already has OEM Windows XP that you are within your rights to re-install your Windows XP (downgrade) if Vista doesn't work, or you don't like it, etc.

I guess my original point that corporations don't buy new PCs at this time to get Vista simply because they have downgrade rights stands.

I will have to re-read some of the licensing materials. Apart from the nasty comments that we all seem to throw back and forth, I appreciate this discussion and I am learning a lot that I thought I knew but did not.

Thanks, people.

Microsoft has been saying that for years, but do they give you a CD key or volume licensing key to accomplish this? The only time I have done this I had a volume licensing key for the previous version, but I don't have volume license key for the OS (the volume licensing keys for MS OS's are upgrade only so they have to be purchased in addition to an OEM license or other license to be technically legal). I guess I could just bite the bullet and call MS after my OEM key will no longer activate it's self online, but that would be a lot of hassle.

Bill

I've yet to see a PC on the retail shelf that DIDN'T have Vista Home...Whatever pre-installed! We're screwed!!!!

Good luck trying. I got a Toshiba, Vista was unstable and then finally crashed, so I tried to install XP BUT -- surprise, no drivers!! Micro$#!t forced the OEM to ditch any support for XP...

My home laptop hard drive died, so I'm looking at replacing it. I'm thinking of getting Vista so I don't have to upgrade it later.

Is the Media version or the Ultimate better for a laptop?

Mindy

"Ultimate" IS the Media Version, but save yourself both the money and a lot of grief, and just stick with XP. Trust me.

Ultimate is NOT the media version. It's the Business/Media version. Vista Home Premium IS the Media version. Here's a link to the differences: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx

Thanks for clearing that up.

My take on the various versions of Vista is simply this: Why pay for reduced functionality?

Every version of Vista below "Ultimate" merely strips away additional functionality from the base OS (a.k.a. "Ultimate"). Microsoft marketing would have you believe that it is the other way around, and the naming convention plays into that very well.

The Vista DVD contains ALL versions of the Operating System because of this set-up, and the version that is installed on your computer is determined only by the key provided with your license.
IOW, with Vista versions other than Ultimate, Less is Less.

Seen from a manufacturing standpoint however, it's gotta be a good thing for MS, after all, they only have to stamp out one disc...

One Disc to rule them all,
One Disc to find them,
One Disc to bring them all,
and in the darkness bind them

(With apologies to J.R.R. Tolkien ;>)

Vista Ultimate is the b*stard child of XP (regular) and XP Media Center, with Windows 2003 as the surrogate parent. Why do I say this? It has the basic functionality of XP (regular), with the extra trimmings of Media Center, all wrapped up with some of the security and underlying feature upgrades of 2003+.

Honestly, most people don't need to use Ultimate and a lot of the whole hype behind this version is wasted.

The only real things that this version offers is multimedia capability (Media Center, bleh), Multiple User Input methods (want to type in Korean? Can't do so any more for free -- ya moron!), games (wewt -- a few games that M$ interns worked on in their spare time), and Bitlocker encryption (uh, I can get the same thing in Vista Business -- woopdeedoo!).

I bought Vista Ultimate for the Media Center capabilities so I could network my xbox 360 (with the MUI functionality as a bonus), but instead I've become more disgruntled by the lack of interconnectivity, especially when I can do the same, dumb thing much easier with my modded xbox! Plus, I can get the MUI thing up and going in Unix without having to resort to paying an extra $100 for an OS.

Kudos M$ on failing to disappoint again.

Wanted to move up from Win2K to clean up old system. What the heck, Vista is here, why not try it.

Cisco will most likely provide update.
Creative not planning upgrade for Nomad Zen
My Textpad license import fails, Textpad not saying. These are programs I actually use and even need.

Screw it, XP Pro runs fine. Luckily I have MSDN subscription and don't have to go to exchange at retailer.

The update has been out for awhile now. I want to say since October? It's worked well on RC1 for me.

Until you get an application that requires Vista, continue to run XP. Be sure you keep it patched, but patches are free,

Great article, well writen.

One of the reason's Microsoft created Vista is so it would be different from XP, it's called "Change" people.

When I buy a new OS I don't want it to have the same look and feel of the old OS, I want it to be different.

When you buy a new car they all come with a steering wheel, gas and brake peddle but now there are some new add ons that your old car didn't have. Same applies with Vista

I like what I see and look forward to using and supporting it.

Operating systems are becoming a commodity. I don't wear a fashionable O/S, rather use it like a hammer. The hammer functions to hit a nail and hold the board on the wall.

If the functionality is not significantly better, why bother? I'm an advocate for change, but not to pay $$ for a fashion statement. Remember ME? Talk about marginal! I haven't seen an article yet that would convince me that I really benefit from the new look and feel.

A proper tool box of OSes wouldn't contain anything that limits or restricts functionality or ability, unless one is grossly negligent.

310 choices of great tools, run live in the CDrom, are at http://livecdlist.com

Hundreds more, http://distrowatch.com

more at http://freeos.com

But, it feels like I am preaching to the choir, because everyone here uses these Free and Open Systems.

We only touch Microsoft products to serve the dweebs, in earning a living.

Like the authors of these 'news' releases, all are Microsoft schills. Yes, the emperor has no clothes.

Alex St. John, official spokesman for Microsoft admits as much, in the current news release that "Vista is broken, and will take some time to fix!"

http://pclinuxos.com is more capable in most applications, than Vista, and is FREE!

The spins you put on every one of your posts make me dizzy.
I defy you to post relevant to a topic without bringing up several links to Linux distros

When I buy a new car I don't want the radio controls to be located in the glove box, or the air conditioner to be located on the right side of the dash-board neither. Sometimes things are created that actually work. That's why controls are still located in traditional spots in a car. Removing something as usefull as a menu bar,,,, what use is that? We use them ALL THE TIME.

That's one principle that Microsoft just doesn't seem to have even heard. The other is, the KISS principle.

Microsoft keeps making life and computing (is there a difference?) harder not easier. I installed the Beta version of Vista (thank god some of my experience has benefitted me in that I installed it on a separate partition as a dual boot), it wouldn't recognize my ethernet card so I ditched it immediately. It is pretty tough getting drivers and updating the system without internet access-doh! This should have been one of the first things that Vista made sure was working and backwards compatible.

Microsoft should have worked at getting rid of a lot of XP/office annoyances, bugs and frustrations. First they would have to admit that they exist, which is probably not something they were willing to do. They should have put their collective brain together to make Windows simpler and easier to use. The Vista interface is all they could come up with? What? Sharper graphics and fade in and out and twirl and twist...cripes, computers have been doing that for years. That alone would have been okay if they had actually improved the usability of Windows. Instead, they hyped everything up and now are trying to hype it up in their marketing sectors--but will it really make our computer experience simpler.

It's called the KIS "stupid" principle. Since Microsoft cannot or refuses to recognize their own stupidity they are unable to implement this all important principle.

As I'm writing this a perfect example literally pops up on my screen. I run Outlook all the time. If my internet email server is down for some reason, Outlook seems is unable to detect this. Instead, it just merrily goes about trying to get mail from my various email pop3 accounts on that server, providing me with messages over and over again, not that the server is inexcessable--no--but that somehow I have managed to put in the wrong user name and password (same one I've used on those accounts for years). To be quite honest, I have not tried the MS Office 2007 suite so maybe this is fixed. Who knows if other MS platform email clients or Linux email clients do any better. Nevertheless, Microsoft, how simple would it be to fix this one annoyance (out of thousands)? Keep it Simple Stupid!

The analogy between an OS and a car doesn't really hold water for me, because an OS is just one component of a working computer, but I think I get your point.
To stick with your analogy: while a new car model may have some new gadgets, if might handle worse than the old one, or do less miles to the gallon, or have a smaller boot/trunk. It might even be unstable at high speeds.

Of course, it could (and should) be better. But when I tried out RC2, I wasn't all that impressed. Apart from the look (which is nice, but not as appealing to me as OSX or Suse 10), I found that most of it's new (or improved) functionality was better achieved by third-party applications I already own.

That brings me on to my next point: some of my favorite apps didn't work. I'd be forced to upgrade or patch them to ensure compatibility - every app I owned survived the more from Win2K to WinXP (except the version of Nero I had which alerted me that it wasn't compatible with WinXP, but kept working perfectly regardless!).

I waited for SP2 before I upgraded to XP and I may wait a good while longer before I move to Vista - perhaps until I'm pushed.

The look of the OS is really not that interesting to me. People don't see me driving my PC or laptop down the street! I just want an OS to make the most of my existing HW and SW, provides adequate security (I'll use my own firewall, AV and anti-trojan sw thanks) and doesn't restrict me too heavily as far as the amount of quality SW I can use on it.

Of course, every new OS needs early adopters to find out what's wrong with it, at least so that it can be patched up. I did my little bit with RC2 and I found it to be still very much at the beta stage (gamma in some areas . I'll wait a while until enough of my "stuff" needs upgrading - otherwise I think it may be a little painful and not entirely worth it.

First to the car analogy ... you are looking at some of the back end items, fuel economy and gadgetry, are the reasons to choose a Hyundai over a Chevy (dollar for dollar you get a slightly better set of features with the Hyundai in most cases)

But, the core here of the "innovation" didn't have to involve changing the "defacto standards".

Every car in the USA is required now to have three brake lights the cyclops eye above and centered (left/right) between the other two. Every car since before I was born, has been required to have turn signals.

The previous analogy of having the controls in the glove box, is much more accurate than whether the car has a sun roof or other gadget.

When we get behind the wheel of a car, in the US, the UK, China, anywhere, we always expect that the turn signal lever will be around the steering wheel. Everyone in the USA expects that lever to be on the LEFT side because THAT is the standard and we don't have to go fumbling, nor do we have to take our hands off the steering wheel to activate that turn signal lever.

It does not mean that the car manufacturer couldn't offer the option to move the lever to the right side as a customization, but that by default, from one car to the next, the position defaults to the left side.

So here too, we look at the os .. feature? the ultimate pack's ALT TAB option showing diagonal snapshots of the application rather than the App name and a flat 2d box with icons in them.. BUT.. ATL TAB is still there. Slightly different display but the feature itself does the exact same thing it has done since windows 3.1! (sorry, since windows 3.0 for those that actually did use it)

So too, the FILE menu. Its not that they took it away, but that they made it nearly impossible without hacking the registry to get it back on a permanent basis. And even then, to demote its position, and allow OTHER bars to be moved at will, EXCEPT above the all mighty address bar "thing".

I did find it frustrating once in a while when I would click and drag the File Menu from Outlook 2000 .. but the simple fact that I could, and could put the file menu lower or higher was fine with me ... and were I someone that rarely if ever used the File Menu, maybe having an "auto hide" option would have been nice .. but.. to take away the prior functionality, and not give a way to have it back **easily** and where it was or where I want it to be.. is again, Microsoft's decision that *they* know what is best for *everyone* even me, when I don't work that way.. I don't like having my hand on the mouse 24/7 .. I prefer from the old days, I like most of my stuff to operate from the keyboard. I'm a die hard fan of keyboard control .. and having to wait for the system to see my ALT key and then give me a menu is just as asinine as making someone wait after using a right click for the menu, or anything else one would select.

Give people the choice to work as they need to, don't make sweeping changes and force them on the world.

You have to keep in mind, microsoft is forcing their way to work with your pc, rather than allowing you to find the way that works best for you. And if you don't think they are forcing people, then come back to me in another month or two and show me how many HP, Compaq, Dell, Gateway, and other major manufacturers are still openly offering XP rather than Vista on their pc's.

First of all, I like most of your comments and your interpretation of the car analogy. But I don't agree with the term force. Microsoft is not forcing me to go out and upgrade to Vista (at least not now). You talk about not being able to buy a new computer without Vista..well, that's because the manufactures of those computers choose to have Vista pre-loaded because it's the latest and "greatest" software right now. If you want to buy a new pc but not have Vista on it, then purchase a copy of XP Pro and install it on the new pc.

It's so funny that these conversations come up with every o/s upgrade. Remember folks..MS hasn't come out with an O/S upgrade in about 5 1/2 yrs (Win XP released in 2001). I don't think that 5 yrs is too soon for a new O/S. Yeah, there are bugs...there were bugs in Win XP, Win 98, and so on... That's why I wait until the "fixes" come out before upgrading.

I've been using Vista and Office 2007 for about 4 mos now and while I see problems, I also see features I like. I hated the "Ribbon Bar" in Ofc2007 at first, but now, it's not so bad, there are many things I can now do faster than I could before.

With any kind of change there is always a learning curve. Just because there is a learning curve does not mean that change is bad.

Anyway...got off on a "rabbit trail", back to my point...we aren't being "forced" to switch to Vista right now. Just like there are still companies using Win2000, there will be companies and users still using Windows XP for several more years.

Forced really isn't that strong a word for the issue.

If it weren't a forced issue, then why aren't we seeing PC's advertized with user choices for XP or Vista?

Because they want to push vista on people. Force people into vista, and force everyone else to get in line on the vista bandwagon.

I think partly this also comes from the viewpoint. Right now, there isn't a single application that demands only a vista OS. There isn't anything main stream (qualifying that *main stream*) that requires people use Vista, and in fact many of the main stream applications are having issues under Vista.

I'm not labelling that as a Microsoft Fault .. but just fact ... and specifically I'm thinking of Intuit/quickbooks issues. That there are main stream applications, vendor getting much of the blame here, that are not ready for Vista, and their user base isn't ready either.

The difference from what XP allowed, to what Vista has allowed for the sake of applications to run, and the statement from microsoft that applications shouldn't run in this fashion is the point that gives microsoft the clearance to say "its not MS's fault". Microsoft did lay down a set of rules and standards telling people to become XP compliant with their code ... I don't think, however, that Vendors saw this as microsoft getting ready to lock the Registry (as it should have from inception) against wide open access.

Now that Microsoft has blocked this, and applications are suffering, those vendors will work diligently to come into line, but, at a cost to the consumer, most likely. And its not the consumers' fault.

The consumer won't have the open choice of XP or Vista, they will only get Vista, and Microsoft is not openly giving licenses for *either* OS to be installed, only for those who buy the premium versions.

It is for that I say "forced". You could go to any vendor, and custom order a pc, but to do so, most of them you have to physically call on the phone, because their internet portals, their weekly ads, and everything in the stores has already been Vista-tized. It is this "forced" choice of Vista I mean, not for the joe user that already has their pc, and decides to go Vista ... although even in that, I say there is some "force" applied from the microsoft marketing machine, MMm good! (ha!)

To back off the "cohersed" move to Vista, Microsoft could come out and openly advertize that many applications will require upgrades, and that until you are running versions of those applications that say Vista Ready, that the user may want to hold off.

But that's not microsoft's goal. They are trying to sell their OS as a commodity that everyone needs, without making it something everyone can use. I can't fault them on their more secure approach, its long over due, but their push to have their newest OS adopted as the unversal standard is just wrong. They know it... no one should blindly go forth to Vista because they will be effected by that choice by any app that doesn't work out of box, under Vista, and that is what the people need to know, to make a better decision before upgrade or purchase.

And again, they don't have that choice, so absent a choice, they are forced to Vista.

Microsoft isn't the only company that does this. I can't go out and buy a new Mac with OS9. I can't purchase an old copy of Norton Antivirus from Norton's website. I can't go to Honda and buy a Diesal Element. In all these things...our choices are made for us. But I do have the choice not to buy those items and buy something else.

It's the same way with buying a new computer..
Your quote: "It is for that I say "forced". You could go to any vendor, and custom order a pc, but to do so, most of them you have to physically call on the phone, because their internet portals, their weekly ads, and everything in the stores has already been Vista-tized."

That is not Microsoft's fault, that is the Vendor's fault (sure MS is pushing them, but not forcing their hand) They could offer a choice of OS, they choose not to. Because the Average Joe WANTS the best and the newest, they EXPECT it. They don't want an OLD O/S if they are buying a compter. So those of us who do...know to call. Again, we aren't forced to use their website...we have other avenues.

This is all just Microsoft Bashing at its best. Yeah, I get sick of the prices and propaganda as much as the next person. But it's marketing and it's gone on for ages, and Microsoft isn't the only company doing this. The oil companies do this too by making us buy reformulated gasolene even though we don't want it. Or by raising the prices arbitrarily.

Heck..just look at the prices of the Adobe Creative Suites of software and how often they upgrade, then come talk to me about "forced". If I want to get my work done I need to upgrade to use the software and continue to get support and updates...

Anyway..All I'm saying, is Microsoft isn't the only company with these types of practices..and we are NEVER FORCED to do anything we don't want to. As others have said, if you don't like it...go with linux or mac...

The other day they told me at Best Buy I couldn't get a new box without vista

From what I have read on several websites Vista will by default degrade High Def information played through it if it considers that there may be a "leak" (any possible way for the high definition information to be used to make a copy)The problem with this is if you have a high end graphics card with multiple high definition outputs on it good luck playing a high def movie on your new $600 blu-ray DVD player, it will play but it will play in a much degraded output. The same goes with high end digital output audio cards, if there is a possibility of you outputting the sound to another device to make a copy of it Vista will degrade.