Custom Search

Search My Download Corner

Monday, July 7, 2008

Windows Vista's successor & predecessor

Microsoft has been hard at work on the successor to the much-criticized Windows Vista's which was launched a year & a half ago. Windows 7 (formerly known as Blackcomb and Vienna) is the working name for the next major version of Microsoft
Windows as the successor of Windows Vista.

Microsoft insistence on its Vista huge success with a disconnect of late that it offered Windows XP Home as a low-cost PC operating system. Now even more damaging to
Vista Bill Gates is previewing major innovations in Windows 7.

Gates and Ballmer among others has been quoted extolling the virtues and success of Vista but shortly later, they are explaining how Windows 7 will be lighter, faster,
and more componentized.For certain Windows 7 will be another two years wait.(expected to be released sometime in 2010.)Baked-in virtualized & gesture-based multitouch screen support are some ite new innovations. Apple with its OS X in mid-2009 assured to be at least six months ahead of Microsoft in these features.

Windows XP for now is generally more in use among Windows users.

Windows Vista versus XP

1)Security: From a security standpoint, there's just not a lot to compel XP shops to upgrade. Many of the issues addressed by Vista have already been resolved under Windows XP using in-house applications or third-party tools.
Moving to Vista provides little or no ROI from a systems management perspective. Yes, the new image-based installation model is a welcome addition. However, the lack of significant innovation in other areas makes Vista's management story less than compelling.
3)Reliability: There is little or no clamor in the Windows XP community for better stability or reliability. Windows XP is a mature, stable OS with a well-known list of weaknesses and corresponding work-arounds. On paper, Vista brings a better foundation, but in practice, it addresses problems that most customers weren't aware even existed, let alone needed fixing.
4) Usability: Change, for change's sake, is never a good idea. And while you can understand Microsoft's desire to refresh the Windows UI (all those Mac OS X screen shots look so much prettier than XP), Vista's designers seem to have cut off their nose to spite their face. Regardless, the usability "improvements" in Vista are unlikely to make IT's list of compelling reasons to move away from XP anytime soon.
5)Performance: Upgrading a user from Windows XP to Vista, without upgrading their hardware, is tantamount to crippling their PC. Would you rather throw new hardware cycles at offsetting Microsoft's code bloat and voracious appetite for CPU bandwidth, or at a tangible, measurable improvement in application throughput and user productivity? Enough said.
6)Hardware compatibility: There's no question that hardware compatibility was initially a sore spot with Vista. Windows XP, by contrast, has a mature and well-vetted compatibility base, with broad support from virtually every manufacturer. And while Vista will almost certainly catch up in time, as things stand right now, every new device insertion is a bit of a crapshoot.
7)Microsoft software compatibility: Windows XP is still, and likely will remain for some time, the compatibility bar for new Microsoft applications. If and when Microsoft attempts to create an exclusive Vista tie-in, the company will need to articulate some valid technical reason – one that stands up to scrutiny from the IT community – for not supporting Windows XP.
8)Third-party software compatibility: ISVs go where the money is, and right now that's still the generic Win32 API (plus MFC/ATL) running on the range of Windows platforms. The only exceptions to this rule are tools or utilities that target Vista-specific functions such as the new boot loader and sidebar widgets. The risk of missing out on important third-party application functionality by sticking with Windows XP is next to nil.
9)Developer tools support: With most developers still targeting the Win32 API, and with virtually the entire .Net Framework 3.0 functionality back-ported to XP, there's simply no compelling reason to base your IDE on Windows Vista.
10) Future-proofing: If ever there were an opportunity to skip a Windows upgrade cycle, the XP-to-Vista transition is it. XP may be showing its age, but its age is mainly skin deep: The new challenger is flashy, but also slower and heavier, and it lacks a killer combination of compelling features needed to unseat XP.

For at least one organization, the choice is clear: you'll get more work done in less time when you use Windows XP instead of Vista. A reader who asked to remain anonymous illustrated his company experience with Vista. When they tested Vista, they configured PCs (both 32- and 64-bit) as they normally would for their users, who are mostly engineers. Their first finding was simple: they did not find a single enhancement that made users more productive. However, their biggest surprise was performance. Universally, they found that their engineering applications required 65% more time to complete tasks [on Vista] compared to XP on the same hardware. They estimated that the average user would waste at least an extra 60 minutes each day simply waiting for things to happen. All of this testing was done on Vista-certified hardware that was no more than six months old. They worked directly with Microsoft and the hardware and software vendors to address these issues. Although Microsoft helped, it was a losing battle. In their earliest tests, the applications required 500% more time to complete. After patching and updating drivers, they were able to get that down to 65%. For their 200 engineers at a $50/hour burden rate, that equates to a loss of $20,000,000 (or more) per year. Now add the cost of hardware upgrades to support Vista. Then deal with the driver and application compatibility issues. Therefore, they found no business case for Vista.


Related Posts:
Windows XP Retirement Postponed, Again
Maintain XP well until Windows 7 arrives
Windows XP - the OS that won't die
Go from XP to Vista only with 64-bit processor

View blog reactions


Post a Comment