CVS vs. Commercial Source Control?

Knight2K asks: "My company is currently using CVS to handle our code repository. The project managers, however, are unhappy with some problems with the system. Most of the developers appear to feel that CVS does what they need just fine, but don't seemed to be bothered by switching to something else. It seems to me that CVS handles part of these things, and cultivating a culture of responsible revision handling would take care of others. I would like to be an advocate for CVS here, but I don't want to just promote the Open Source solution if there are legitimate reasons or advantages to switching to a commercial project."

"The project managers disliked CVS because of the following:

• Inadequate logging. (Management wants to be able see who is checking in what, how often, and how, track known issues, ChangeLogs, etc...).
• Controls for branching and merging are awkward
• Files can be edited by multiple users simultaneously without checkout.
• Work has been and will be lost due to lack of true version control.

So my questions are:

• Has anybody made the jump from CVS to a commercial source code control system (or vice-versa)? Why? How do they compare to CVS?
• Anybody have procedures or processes they can share for handling branching and locking? How about tools to make the process easier?

I realize the issues listed above are a little vague. If it helps, we work on Java web applications and develop on Unix and Windows with a variety of different editors. Any insights into source code control would be great."