Possible Last-Minute Problems With Vista SP2

crazyeyes writes "It looks like Microsoft is facing problems with Windows Vista SP2. The final Service Pack for Vista and Server 2008 (before Windows 7 comes out) has been delayed. The folks who broke the launch details and dates of previous Service Packs for XP and Vista have Microsoft's latest internal schedule. Can Microsoft get it out before Windows 7? According to the new schedule, just barely."

Comments

They have to..

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Windows 7 is Vista SP3.

Re:They have to..

[Tr3vin]

Since Windows 7 is Vista SP3.

Also known as Windows 1.0 SP86.

Re:They have to..

[GF678]

Why do people keep referring to Win 7 as a service pack for Vista?

With that logic I could say XP is a service pack of 2000.

Operating systems don't need to be evolutionary, and in many cases it better they aren't. Incremental improvements from a (questionable) proven base are better than making too different and new.

I think people keep forgetting history when it comes to MS operating systems.

Re:They have to..

[SpaceLifeForm]

We try.

Re:They have to..

[zonky]

It's more of a "R2" style release.

Re:They have to..

[peektwice]

Operating systems don't need to be evolutionary, and in many cases it better they aren't.

Yes, but incremental improvements to a flaming bag of shit results in larger flames and more shit.

Re:They have to..

[khellendros1984]

I think you've missed the meaning of the word "evolutionary". It *is* a set of incremental improvements from some baseline.

I would consider XP similar to a "service pack" to 2000. They're almost the same OS, in much the same way that Vista and 7 are almost the same. If 2 operating systems are designed to use the exact same drivers, they may as well be the same OS.

Re:They have to..

[afidel]

On the server side that's exactly what they are calling it, the server release based on the Win7 codebase is to be called Windows Server 2008R2.

Re:They have to..

[samriel]

When you think about it, that 2000->XP logic works. By the same logic, Windows 7 is a service pack, and direct descendant, of the original Windows NT.

If you were to look at the codebase, I would wager that Vista and Win7 are incredibly close. The majority of the overhaul is a) interface (to add a nice KDE-esque taskbar) and b) usability (How about an obvious add/remove programs panel?).

In the same vein, there have only been two or three real Microsoft operating systems: MS-DOS, the Win1-3/9x codebase, and the WinNT codebase (I might be wrong; this is mostly a viewpoint thing anyway.)

Re:They have to..

[jmorris42]

> Also known as Windows 1.0 SP86.

No, service packs are a free download. Windows 7 is Vista SE. Remember Win98SE? It was a service pack but they needed some cash and made people buy it as a version upgrade. Looks like history is about to repeat with Vista except this time they also have to change the name because Vista has gained such a horrible brand identity. It's now the Edsel of Operating Systems. Like the Edsel, Vista probably doesn't deserve all of the rap it has got but reality and PR aren't on the same planet with each other.

The big takeaway from all of the Windows 7 reviews though is that if you hate Vista you will probably hate Windows 7.

They are saying you can run Windows 7 on a netbook. Ya, like you could run Vista on one. Yes it installs and sorta runs but XP runs better.

Windows 7 toned down the security nags a bit and added some nice chrome to the taskbar. Haven't even heard Microsoft itself claim any other major differences with Vista other than yet another IE rev that is currently so broke it might not make the cut. Bugfixes and a couple of minor UI tweaks do not a major version make. We are firmly in point release territory at best, service pack sounds closer to what they are going to ship. They are going to call it a new version because they need a fresh hit of revenue.

Re:They have to..

[beav007]

The majority of the overhaul is a) interface (to add a nice KDE-esque taskbar)

I love this.

Microsoft: where innovation means copying other peoples ideas...

Re:They have to..

[MrSteve007]

Here's a list I came up with detailing some of the more visible differences in Windows 7. It entails quite a bit more than just a Service Pack:

http://geekpi.com/?p=25

For users

* New Interface: A greatly simplified toolbar, but only at first glance. The quick launch and taskbar now intermingles and can be greatly customized by the user.
* New Taskbar: The taskbar now automatically hides icons as theyâ(TM)re added, into what I call an icon corral which can be selected to show the icons.
* UAC simplification slider: You can define how and when you are prompted by the UAC, even shutting it off.
* UAC definition by program: You can also exempt specific programs from UAC prompts.
* Device Stage: A number of rumors have been circulating about this one. First and foremost, device manufactures DO NOT have to program this in order for it to work it is just an option for direct interaction. Access all the functions of your devices from one screen.
* Homegroups: Its a situation that many of us face. We have a domain controlled work laptop. We come home and want to access our personal media (now managed by libraries) and printers. This solves those problems, while keeping company data safe. Default printers change automatically, depenting on what network you connect to.
* Libraries in Explorer: expanded support for Libraries across networks and a changed browsing interface within explorer.
* Math Input panel: It seems quite advanced, including input of hand/mouse written algebra and calculus.
* Calculator: Adding separate programmer and statistics modes to the previous standard and scientific calculator options.
* MS Paint: Welcome the ribbon.
* Magnifier: built in application to magnify a specific area of the screen and zoom in. This is similar to the capability enabled in XP or Vista in with Microsoft Mouse software.
* Gadgets across the desktop: Gadgets are no longer limited to the gadget toolbar.
* Simplified network connection stack: Ability to peek into the network stack and select an available network without opening any windows.
* Sticky windows (my definition): You can now drag windows to the top of the screen, which will automatically maximize the window. Also by dragging the window to the side of the screen, it will size the window to take the half of that side of the screen
* Preview Desktop: To the right of the taskbar, there is now a preview desktop button.
* Media Player Codec Expansion: Native support for AAC, H264, divx, xvid, AVCHD, flip video to the list of supported codecs.
* StreamOn: Ability to push audio and video output to networked A/V devices (think radios, receivers, and TVs).
* Display Color Calibration Wizard: A step-by-step interface to more closely calibrate proper gamma, brightness/contrast, and to eyeball proper color.
* Simplified Sideshow support: I previously installed sideshow on my windows mobile phone, when I created a Bluetooth relationship with the phone (for PAN support), it automatically discovered its capabilities and shows this in the sideshow area and device stage. Remote bluetooth control of media player, via a win mobile phone.
* New Backgrounds: Sure, absolutely not important, but an interesting re-take on the current Vista background theme.
* Faster Boots: Parallel device initialization during boot â" faster boot times. Demo showed a 5-10 second faster cold boot over Vista.
* Simple Shutdown: In later builds theyâ(TM)ve removed the confusing red, round button and replaced it with a simple, named â(TM)shut downâ(TM) button on the start menu, with the optional OS stops on a pull down menu on the right.

For IT

* Action Center: Thereâ(TM)s a good deal built into this function, but one of the most interesting features is a built in application that allows users record a walk thr

Re:They have to..

[neokushan]

It's significantly faster than Vista, might not be huge changes under the hood, but the changes that are there are definitely for the better. It certainly feels like what a new OS should feel like.

Re:They have to..

[dgatwood]

By that definition, Mac OS X v10.5 and Mac OS X Public Beta are the same OS (printer drivers notwithstanding). You remember Public Beta---the version that didn't even have an Apple menu....

A well written OS should generally work with the same drivers as previous versions with few exceptions. Every now and then it isn't possible, but for the most part, it is not only possible, but also desirable.... Using driver compatibility as a metric is a really bad way to judge whether something is the same OS or not....

Re:They have to..

[644bd346996]

OS X 10.5 is derived from the Public Beta in a series of incremental releases that were, with one exception, overpriced. None of the updates to OS X has come with new features that are worth the $130 that Apple charges, though at least Apple hasn't billed any of them as an all-new rewrite of the previous version. On the other hand, many users (particularly converts from Windows) may feel that the performance increases found in new releases of OS X are worth paying significant money for. (I personally feel that that attitude can only come from unreasonably low expectations for software "upgrades".)

Re:They have to..

[ProfessionalCookie]

Now diff your list (7 and Vista) vs Windows 7 and XP. Finally count the things that were promised for Vista and compare this number to the-above. And then you'll see why Windows 7 is a service pack.

Re:They have to..

[jo42]

Why do people keep referring to Win 7 as a service pack for Vista?

They are being polite. Some of us refer to it as "the polished turd formerly known as Vista".

Re:They have to..

[The Great Pretender]

A bit like Tiger and Leopard?

Re:They have to..

[petermgreen]

No, XP was a fairly major merge of the NT and 9X product lines.
From a marketing perspective yes , from a technical perspective no.

They added marginally better support for dos and I belive some old badly behaved windows apps but it was just that marginally better still not much good.

The important stuff like WDM (which allows drivers to be shared between the two lines and brought support for plug and play to the NT line) and directx was already there in 2K.

IIRC they were planning to make 2K be the release that unified the consumer and proffesional lines of windows but they bottled out at the last minuite and made ME because too many people were still relying on old dos or badly behaved windows apps.

Re:They have to..

[Barsteward]

INCREMENTAL ??

Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[Anonymous Coward]

These silly Windows stories have pretty much negated their desired effect on people.

Ever since the lead up and release of Win2k Slashdot has been trying to manufacture the news fiction that "Windows total failure. Year of desktop Linux has arrived"

* Late service packs

* Stories of such and such company skipping a certain Windows version or service pack

* Hyping early bugs ever new has and then pretending they were never fixed

With Vista Slashdot went over the top with the Windows FUD and nothing came of it. Now everyone is:

* Trying out Win7 and raving about how good it is

* Finding out that Win7 is just Windows Vista with some UI and performance enhancements

Pretty much destroying any credibility Slashdot might have with exactly the people this site hoped to turn into Linux users with the Windows FUD.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[fred fleenblat]

Churro?

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[dgatwood]

They weren't lied to. When Vista came out, it was a compatibility disaster. The rest of the computing world simply wasn't ready for it when it was released, so drivers weren't ready, apps didn't work, etc. The rest of the computing world kept right on improving, though, and users kept on upgrading their software, drivers, etc. Thus, at this point, most people have versions of apps and drivers that are compatible with Vista, most hardware manufacturers have working Vista drivers, etc. As a result, Vista isn't as much of a train wreck as it was a few years ago, nor is Windows 7 for the same reason.

Of course, if someone upgraded to Vista today, he/she would find that Vista still uses way more RAM than it should (and way more than XP uses), but that's one of the things Windows 7 is supposed to be addressing. Don't underestimate how important that is when it comes to overall usability, performance, etc. Those "minor" improvements to Vista are not really minor. They just aren't feature changes. There's a difference.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[setagllib]

What masterful release are you talking about? Windows 7 isn't even out yet. If you're going to prepare trolls in advance at least make sure you don't post them too early.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[__aatgod8309]

Of course, if someone upgraded to Vista today, he/she would find that Vista still leaves far less unused RAM than XP, but that's one of the changes Windows 7 is supposed to be reverting.

Fixed for accuracy. Seriously, what is the issue people have with Vista making use of the memory you have?

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[sswanny]

So two people? Nice.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[SanityInAnarchy]

Yeh, mark me as a troll but think about it ... Anyone who just wants to read their email, browse the web and sync their iTunes with their iPod will choose a Mac.

Yes, if they specifically want to sync their iTunes, their choices are pretty much just Mac or Windows.

But I would guess the main reason Linux struggles on the desktop (besides not being given much of a chance) is that you're talking about a mythical class of user. Users who really do only want to read email, browse the web, and play music on an iPod would be fine with Linux, and would probably be very interested to find that they can buy a laptop for less than a thousand dollars that will do all of that -- and comes preloaded with Linux, so no installation issues.

But real users always have one more thing they need to work. Linux will get you 95% there, but the last 5% is different for everyone.

Still, with this economy, I wouldn't be surprised to see people trading that last 5% for a drop in price alone, especially if they consider TCO (how often will someone have to service it?)

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[Computershack]

Fixed for accuracy. Seriously, what is the issue people have with Vista making use of the memory you have?

Exactly. In fact, the very people who berate Windows overlook the fact that so many people in the Linux community thought Superfetch was a good idea that the "preload" daemon in Linux was born.
Oh look, here's a "Preload Drastically Improves Linux Performance " Slashdot article.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[FishWithAHammer]

Except that Vista does graceful caching and cedes RAM when an application wants it. Forgot that part, hm?

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[khellendros1984]

I had 4 problems with Vista.
1. Aero is pretty, but not useful
2. The performance sucks; it uses clock cycles and memory to automate things I don't care about
3. Massive intrusive support for DRM and content protection (HDCP, etc)
4. Windows Genuine Advantage is mandatory.

They cleaned up the UI. It's sleeker, while maintaining some of Aero's glitz. The performance has improved, although not as much as I'd like. The DRM and WGA are still there. Half of the things I disliked about Vista were improved.

I still dislike Vista, and find Windows 7 to be a slight, but nice, improvement. I'm still not leaving XP. Like with Vista, I don't see enough improvement to make it worthwhile.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[khellendros1984]

Because it doesn't give it up when I want to use it for something else? I'd rather that the operating system be leaner, so I can run my heavy duty stuff on top of it. A game can't use the resources that the OS has allowed itself to expand into.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[FishWithAHammer]

Exactly. It's a good thing that your OS will use more RAM for caching, so long as it gives it back when somebody else needs it. Think of it as nice(1) for caching or something.

(Then again, the majority of complainers probably don't know what nice(1) is either.)

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[afidel]

Except it doesn't really, just like every MS VM it often decides that keeping system cache is more important than keeping applications in memory and so it decides to swap out "infrequently" used code and data. The problem is when you go to switch from your photo app to your browser after not having used the browser for 30 minutes Windows has to swap it back in, in the meantime it might have just been using that ram to hold autosave files that were never re-read. This leads to your browser taking up to a minute or two to come back to usability.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[dgatwood]

Windows Vista doesn't just cache more aggressively, though that's certainly one valid complaint. An OS generally should never page live VM pages out to disk except when there is memory contention. That means that prefetched data in the disk cache should drop to darn near zero before you start seeing paging traffic. If it doesn't, something is badly wrong. That said, this is just one of many significant memory problems with Vista.

The display subsystem is designed in such a way that any apps that use GDI for drawing get all their windows double buffered, resulting in memory bloat and poor performance (source: Guardian.co.uk). Indeed, changes in the window management system result in a huge reduction in memory footprint in Windows 7. A fifty percent reduction in backing store size is not a small improvement by any stretch of the imagination, particularly when you consider that most of that bloat represented a Vista regression relative to XP....

The OS growing to consume all available memory is a virtue is only valid if the OS uses it sensibly. If it squanders it and then ends up ejecting useful pages as a result, that is not a good thing no matter how you look at it....

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[evanspw]

That's utter bollocks. I have a workstation with 8GB of RAM running Vista64. No such thing happens. All open apps spring back to life pretty much instantly no matter how long they have been dormant.
There's something fucked up in your setup, or you're trolling.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[Johnno74]

1. Aero is pretty, but not useful

Huh? Why do you have such an issue with Aero? If it bugs you so much, turn it off...
Its mainly just bling. Unless you have crappy onboard graphics the performance cost of aero is negligible. I like the bling, and the preview on alt-tab or mouse hover on the taskbar is useful.

2. The performance sucks; it uses clock cycles and memory to automate things I don't care about

IMHO Vista doesn't have a performance problem. I've got an XP desktop at home that is loaded up with plenty of stuff like file indexing and other things that come out of the box with vista. Its performance is slightly better than vista when lightly loaded, and _heaps_ worse when heavily loaded (couple of users logged on, lots of memory-hungry apps open)
In situations where XP would have problems even responding well enough to even shut down Vista just keeps on chugging along. Performance degradation under load in vista is mugh more graceful than XP, no question.

3. Massive intrusive support for DRM and content protection (HDCP, etc)

Pop quiz. Can you point to just one thing that you can do with XP, but the DRM in vista blocks you? Things like HDCP suck a bit, but they weren't invented by microsoft, but they were required by the MPAA in order for vista to support high def output of "protected" content - something XP can't do at all. Vista will not stop you ripping a DVD or CD, playing a dodgy Xvid download or anything else you can do on XP.
Please don't use any references or quotes from Peter whatsisname from Auckland University or you'll just look as uninformed as him.

4. Windows Genuine Advantage is mandatory.

Yeah, kinda a pain, but only if you have pirated windows. If you have an OEM install then its "preactivated" via a key in the bios, but having to activate retail copies is a hassle, particuarly if you change hardware or rebuild. I'm not happy about this one either, but its hardly a dealbreaker.

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[TrancePhreak]

How is the support for HDCP intrusive? It's only enabled while playing a file that requests that kind of DRM.

If you want to see real intrusive DRM, get a Macbook with just a vga port and try to play protected iTunes videos...

Re:Slashdot == The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf

[shutdown -p now]

The display subsystem is designed in such a way that any apps that use GDI for drawing get all their windows double buffered, resulting in memory bloat and poor performance

Isn't that an inevitable consequence of moving to a compositing window manager, and doesn't enabling composition on X have exactly the same effect?

Follow the money

[carp3_noct3m]

Microsoft doesn't want to release it soon, even if they could. The reason: less stable vista = more reason to upgrade to windows 7 (read: more money for Microsoft). That may not be the actuality, but I bet a handful of people think that way there. On a side note, Ive been running Windows 7 beta for a week now (I decided to be ahead of the curve for all future OS releases due to the nature of my job) and am overall very impressed (I know, shoot me and throw overboard into /. shark waters) Its faster (especially restart times!) and overall more polished. Now, it should of been windows vista in the first place, but its too late to go back in time with my machine (lost a watchyamacallit and a thingymajiger) I really suggest if you havent to at least throw up a VM of it sometime.

Re:Follow the money

[Anonymous Coward]

What version of Earth do you live on where Vista isn't stable?

Re:Follow the money

[Blakey Rat]

I'm not sure whether you're just paranoid, or actually stupid. Vista is perfectly stable. Microsoft gets the same amount of money whether people buy Vista now, or Windows 7 in a few months. Do you have any kind of citation, or even an argument based in reality, to say this is a conspiracy?

People running Vista

[Enderandrew]

Most end-users running Vista are doing so because they aren't comfortable changing their OS, those who absolutely must have DirectX 10 and don't realize you can get it on XP with some hackery, or Microsoft fans who insist on running Microsoft's latest release.

I'm not sure any of those three groups will care that much about Vista SP2. The first is largely uneducated on technical matters. The second is only fixated on gaming, and the third will be Windows 7 early adopters.

Vista SP2 however is aimed largely at the first group, who bought their computer with Vista preinstalled, and likely won't jump to 7. Microsoft has to support those users for years to come.

Re:People running Vista

[Scutter]

Most end-users running Vista are doing so because they aren't comfortable changing their OS, those who absolutely must have DirectX 10 and don't realize you can get it on XP with some hackery, or Microsoft fans who insist on running Microsoft's latest release.

Where do you get your data from? Evreyone I know that runs Vista runs it because they like it. The only people I know that bitch about Vista are Linux fanboys.

Re:People running Vista

[dylan_-]

Where do you get your data from?

Probably from real life.

Evreyone I know that runs Vista runs it because they like it.

Everyone I know that runs Vista runs it because it came on the new computer they bought.

The only people I know that bitch about Vista are Linux fanboys.

The only people I know that bitch about Vista are those that run it on the new computers they bought.

Re:People running Vista

[Schuthrax]

How about XP fanboys? Or OSX fanboys? Or Windows Server 2008 fanboys? Or Windows for Workgroups fanboys? Or even, dare I say it, Windows ME fanboys?!

Honestly, I am most upset that I was forced to get Vista "for free" on my newest laptop and now I am stuck with it unless I want to pay even more M$ tax. Microsoft should do the world a favor and offer free upgrades to 7. Now *that* would shut a lot of people up.

Re:People running Vista

[khellendros1984]

I am a software engineer; I find inefficiency annoying. Vista does all sorts of anonymous crap in the background. I don't know what it's doing, and there's no easy way to find out. I don't see any concrete benefit to whatever it's doing, and it seems to do it all the time. I'm accustomed to a little more transparency in the operation of my computer. I guess that's part of the reason that Vista seems like nothing more than a big ball of annoyance to me. It's unnecessary; I can't seem to figure out what it does so much better than XP, except get money for Microsoft.

Re:People running Vista

[Johnno74]

If you can't find out what it is that vista is doing in the background, then you aren't much of a software engineer.

Look up process explorer, process monitor and autoruns sometime.

Re:People running Vista

[Enderandrew]

I'm heading out the door, and I will respond with regressions, however for your supposed improvements:

XP allows you to run as a non-admin, and it is easier in XP. You can still elevate permissions, in a far less annoying fashion. Vista's UAC is a failure, and that is why it is greatly improved in Windows 7.

If you are surfing the web in IE, you fail. If you insist on running IE, you can run IE without permissions with IE7 in XP.

2000 supported transparency, but they didn't activate it. I'm running the Vista Transformation Pack. I have a translucent Aero interface on XP that runs faster than Vista. And Vista's driver model was so broken, that the composite effects eat up CPU resources. A proper composite system shouldn't eat up the CPU and memory so much, because it should offload to the GPU. For shits and giggles I installed openSUSE 11.1 on an old retired laptop with a GeForce 440 (32MB RAM) and I can run Compiz Fusion, and KDE 4's composite effects. However, I can't install Vista on the box, even without Aero. Windows 7 didn't rewrite Aero, but it fixed some of the driver issues, so Aero isn't so CPU-hungry. But in Vista, it is an abject failure.

The Start Menu is a huge regression. A scrollbar within the Start Menu? It takes me far more clicks, and far more time to get to what I'm looking for. The Vista menu is a usability nightmare. Adding search does not offset the poor design. It look pretty, but using it is a pain.

I've never had a crashed video driver ever in XP. For over six months after Vista's release, Nvidia couldn't release a decent working Vista driver at all. The video driver situation in Vista has been poor at best. Thankfully, this seems improved in Windows 7. The fact that Microsoft placed so much emphasis on fixing the issues with video drivers in Vista points out that it was problematic.

I've got BluRay working on XP.

I haven't tried Vista's MCE mode. Perhaps you can be more specific on why it is better. Is it is anything like the start menu being better?

All of them?

[Gothmolly]

Could it be that the last minute problems of Vista SP2 are just ... well, Vista ?

Of course it'll be out first

[tsalmark]

Windows 7 will also slip.

What "Last Minute Problems"?

[Jon.Laslow]

TFA doesn't actually mention any problems, and most people on the non-public SP2 Beta news groups (disclaimer: I'm an SP2 technical tester) are reporting this beta is very stable. I haven't had any serious issues with it, and I've yet to see any proof of a 'show-stopper' that would cause such a delay.

Now give me a minute to get my flame-resistant suit on so I can safely watch my karma burn.

Re:The sound you hear in the background

[khellendros1984]

Not a Debian bootstrap?

Re:Beating dead horses...

[rfunches]

When college students and faculty come to my desk and ask how do they save or print their document in Word 2007, that's a pretty clear indication that the Word UI is complex and complicated.

Re:Beating dead horses...

[Tubal-Cain]

"PrintScreen" key.

Re:Red Title?

[drachenstern]

Are you sure it wasn't just part of the firehose? You'll have to look and see if you're on index2.pl or just index.pl on your home page. It's most likely that you're on index2...

More that a Service Pack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a list I came up with detailing some of the more visible differences in Windows 7. It entails quite a bit more than just a Service Pack:

[snip]

        * Less Versions, SKUs: Word on the street is that theyre looking to reduce the number of SKUs involved.

So . . . . point update PLUS service pack. Certainly worth the price . . .

Re:Beating dead horses...

[guruevi]

Actually, people are considering stepping over to other platforms (finally) because

a) Apple has very much improved their interoperability and price points since the last major computer buying cycle (3-5 years ago, the Internet age with the G5 (greatest desktop ever but expensive) and P3-P4 (P3 was good but P4 was a disaster)). Now all those P4's are coming of age and a Mac will run your olden programs as well as new ones for both platforms.

b) Linux and even OpenOffice 3 has reached feature parity with what most Windows users are currently running (XP and Office 2000-2003) and has some of the nice things of Vista as well if you have the hardware (accelerated desktop and effects)

c) Vista is a disaster (whether it's PR or not we leave in the middle) and requires an overly expensive computer to run all it's features on. In the mean time, the economy is making people look for lower-end which has Ubuntu on netbooks, gOS on Wal-Mart's stuff or allows Apple to beat Dell in mid and high-end (good looking too) computers (especially business)

d) The geeks that most people ask about computer related stuff have some experience with either Mac/Linux and will likely recommend that as well. A few years ago, most geeks I know were still in Windows 2000-XP land whereas most (the same people) now run Linux.

e) 80% of all incoming students in the University I work at has an Apple machine and I've heard that other Universities are experiencing the same (one executive said in a meeting that within a few years we might all have to switch since all our students will want us to accept non-Microsoft digital formats too). Since students are considered the most tech-savvy in most households (where non-geeks live), most likely the parents are following their lead even if it's just to get iChat to work.

f) Whereas businesses used to be able to spend a lot in IT, now most businesses have tightened their belt, if not only in free-budget IT. CIO's and CFO's are actively looking for cheaper alternatives where before you could spend multiple thousands in server licensing without anybody asking. Also the current and incoming geek-class server admins have knowledge and experience with alternatives where before server admins were sometimes nothing but glorified accountants that worked on a really good spreadsheet in Excel once.

There is a big retro-rebellion going on

[Orion Blastar]

because many users are asking for that Windows XP downgrade and willing to pay more money to get it.

Plus more and more file sharing networks are downloading Windows XP ISO images at new records for downloads to get rid of Vista and replace it with a pirated version of XP because they cannot buy a copy of XP except from certain vendors.

Not only that but a lot of people are waiting for ReactOS to enter Beta testing and get closer to a 1.0 release version. So they can have a free and open source Windows alternative that runs native Windows XP drivers and software.

Heck some people even want to use AROS, HaikuOS, or some other FOSS alternative to Windows just to get away from Vista. Even, gasp, Linux! Plus more and more Macs are being sold and converted from PC users.

Re:Beating dead horses...

[chiguy]

I agree that it's difficult to find. 100% of the folks in my [small] office had to ask someone else how to print when 2007 rolled out.

Thing is, the UI isn't any more complicated than the old one (does putting the print function in the "File" menu any better?). It's just different. And when you have been trained for years where to go to print, and then you put it somewhere else, it's not nearly as obvious.

In this case, the main problem is the Orb in the top left looks like the title bar icon from other programs, where you would never go to find the print function, or any other meaningful function that wasn't more easily accessible in the top right. This has been ingrained in them as long as they've used windows.

So the Orb is a blind spot.

Once they knew about the Orb, they have no problem using the UI, so it's not complicated in a strict sense, just initially confusing, and that IS the designers' fault.