Who's giving Vista a miss and waiting for Windows 7?

Who's giving Vista a miss and waiting for Windows 7?

Summary: I'm now hearing a lot of chat about Windows 7. While it's hard to separate out what's real and what's just drivel, I am getting a sense that Microsoft is ramping up development on Windows 7. So here's a question for those of you who've put off jumping onto the Vista platform so far - is all this talk of Windows 7 making it more likely that you'll give Vista a miss and wait for Windows 7 to be cooked?


I'm now hearing a lot of chat about Windows 7.  While it's hard to separate out what's real and what's just drivel, I am getting a sense that Microsoft is ramping up development on Windows 7.  So here's a question for those of you who've put off jumping onto the Vista platform so far - is all this talk of Windows 7 making it more likely that you'll give Vista a miss and wait for Windows 7 to be cooked?

It's not that Vista is being dealt out of the game just yet, but you sure get the feeling that it's not going to be long until it's handed its coat and hat The problem with speculation is that it's hard to put any plans in place around it, but as soon as Bill Gates let it be known that "sometime in the next year or so we will have a new version" of Windows it because pretty obvious that Windows 7 was now well and truly on the cards.  It's not that Vista is being dealt out of the game just yet, but you sure get the feeling that it's not going to be long until it's handed its coat and hat.  Microsoft spokespeople are sticking to the story that the next version will ship three years from Vista's January 2007 debut (which would make it early 2010), so maybe Gates was referring to beta releases rather than the RTM code.  However, even the official timeline would mean that we could be seeing Windows 7 betas late this year or early next, so no matter how you cut it, Windows 7 is pretty close. 

People at Microsoft who are on the front line (PR, or those a couple of steps removed from PR) won't admit it, but those deeper within the organization have a little more freedom to admit that Vista is tainted much in the same way as Windows Me was tainted.  While I don't think that Vista is anywhere near as bad as ME was, it doesn't have to be.  Too many years went by between Windows launches and people had grown too used to XP and had come to expect far too much of Vista prior to release.  Given those twin pressures, it was always going to be hard for Vista to be liked and respected no matter how good it turned out to be.  The RTM release of Vista was far from perfect and this gave plenty of ammo to the Vista haters.  Over the months since Vista was released Microsoft has worked hard to push out a number of patches that have significantly improved the OS, and SP1 goes a long way in making Vista as good, if not better is some aspects, than XP.  Once something has been branded as damaged goods, it's hard to remove that label.  Vista's stuck with the label "Vista ME, MKII."

This is where Windows 7 comes in.  While I doubt that Windows 7 will be all that different to Vista (I certainly don't expect Microsoft to tinker too much with the kernel, and I don't expect it to be a 64-bit only flavor release), one thing that will be different is the name.  I can almost guarantee you that it won't be called Vista II or anything like that. 

Anyway, I digress.  Back to the original question.  If you've not already deployed Vista, does all this Windows 7 chatter make you want to hold out until 2010 and wait for the next version? 

[poll id=277]

If so, do you think that Windows XP is good enough to hold out until 2010?

[poll id=278]

Based on what evidence are you giving Vista a miss?

[poll id=279]


Topics: Windows, Microsoft, Operating Systems, Software

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.


Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Windows 7

    I have let Vista take over for XP and I dont regret it and I dont see what the drivel is about the constant griping about it. Yes there are driver issues but MS isnt to blame -- its your hardware manufacturer that is to blame, FURTHER all the mainstream guys (HP, Dell, Lexmark, etc) all have drivers for Vista (and most 64bit drivers - which I do care about because I made the leap all the way to 64bit). I would think I would experience the most pain because well i did go to the 64bit version of Vista but Apps run seamlessly and drivers are a non-issue.

    Everyone that is going on about how Vista sucks, is slow, etc is probably not using the right hardware (its known that Vista is a resource hog and needs power) or they never used it and is perpetuating FUD.

    It will be interesting to see Windows 7 and see what MS really changes... and Im sure a lot of it will be under the hood. Unfortunately MS wont do a 64bit only release (even though a good portion of the hardware out there is 64bit capable) but they dont want the PR black-eye as what happend to Vista because they rushed it out.
    • So businesses should all throw money away on hardware

      just to buy a new OS that has lots of incompatibility problems?

      Dream on. All that we're seeing is that nobody believes Microsoft anymore, and quite rightly too.
      • Linux is a growing movement for businesses in hard times..

        You have a small business and it's just hanging on...taxes are due, you've had to let go of all the employees that you can spare and all the utilities keep going up until you think that doomsday is upon us...oh, and the bank says your house is WAY over loaned and they would like to renegotiate terms...
        So, is it time to buy new computers and retrain IT folk and upgrade not just all of your software from Death Star, but all of the versions of software from other companies that won't work now that you've upgraded?
        What's that cost? About $100,000 for a small company? Sure, why not?
        Not so fast! Why not have your lead IT person investigate the top grade of Linux and all of the programs that go with it for free or next to free that also will work with the latest versions of Windows Office and other Windows programs. They've got a job ahead of them, but they are going to save you well over $90,000.00!!!!! That's right! We bought a palatte of old PII computers and some flat screen monitors (with adapers), upgraded the video cards to 64 bit and the memory to 64MB (you remember those days?) OK, that's the cheap part, less than $1,200.00 . Now the IT person has to take a month figuring out all the machine, printer and mouse drivers etc. to make it all work. They have to find Linus programs for free or on the cheap and teach us all how to use them...but wait! They are all pretty self-explanitory! And now, a month later we have a closet full of spare computers and parts, all the free software that we need with updates coming to our door for free and and IT person that works hard to keep up with the Linux industry as well as contribute (yes on company time, it's only fair) for less than $7,600.00!!!
        Oh, and I sold our Death Star stock before the market really goes oops and paid down the house so that the bank is happy again..for now. I can drive an old car, I can do without a few people on staff and I can definetely do without being forced to upgrade and buy...did I say buy? I meant LEASE! That's right folks, the new plan by Death Star is to force users to lease and upgrade annually all software licenses...Isn't THAT special?!
        • What about...

          support cost and the cost of not being able to use enterprise and legacy apps, not all apps have replacements or can be replaced. Besides who wants to be associated with a bunch of teenage marxists (since MS is 'death star' :rolleyes:).
          • There is rarely any reason to swap ALL the windows

            installations with Linux. It is usually a good idea to keep at least some on Windows or at the very least have a few dual-boots.
          • God bless enterprise and legacy apps

            how else would senior system analysts keep their jobs
          • Hah!

            You are so full of it. Linux is already a major player in the business market.
            We are working with IBM to develop a bleeding edge secure information system on Linux.

            "IBM is one of the top commercial contributors to Linux, bringing over 15000 Linux customer engagements and over 3000 Sun Solaris migrations to Linux in an unparalleled wealth of technical expertise, flexibility, and business performance.

            Why Linux?
            - Flexibility, choice, and TCO with a world class enterprise operating system.
            - Community innovation integrates leading edge technologies and best practices into Linux.
            - Linux offers a future-proof, long-term strategic platform. All major server and middleware vendors support the Linux platform.

            IBM is a leader in the Linux community with over 600 developers in the IBM Linux Technology Center working on over 100 open source projects in the community.

            Your "teenage marxist" slur is totally BS.

            Linux comes from the Unix heritage, developed by professional computer scientists in businesses, universities, and government.
            Microsoft is only in the business to make billions off of idiots like you.
            Linux is for professionals, MS is a toy.
        • Glad it worked for you

          however, moving to Linux is not feasible for every company. Besides, in most cases it's not a necessity to upgrade all of your machines OSes just because a new OS is released. I still have a machine running DOS because it doesn't need to be upgraded. The DOS programs still accomplish all the tasks that that machine needs to accomplish. There are ATMs out there still running off of OS2. I know since I watched one of them reboot due to a transaction error. A business needs to do a cost/benefit analysis before just implementing or upgrading an OS or software. Marketing brochures are going to tout the benefits of the OS for obvious reasons, but that doesn't necessarily mean that upgrading is going to benefit your business.
      • hardware I have is enuf for me

        No need to spend money on new hardware to run Vista with it's visual feature "upgrades" when XP does all That I Need on the hardware I've already paid for. Apps on XP query databases and crunch numbers just fine for me. If monitors get to where they can operate with way more than their maximum present pixel count for eye-sharp definition of landscapes in MS FSX or IL2, I might consider a change. But, for most of what I use a computer for XP is entirely adequate.
      • It tooks years for businesses to upgrade to XP

        So why do so many clueless trolls expect they will upgrade to Vista the day it's released? Give me a break, you trolls spew so much anti-Vista BS and it's all ignorance and lies. Vista is better than XP and hardware gets cheaper every year (ram and cpus by 50% a year), Vista is built for the future, it's secure and has stability improvements, businesses will appreciate that WHEN they do upgrade, but of course it's not an emergency for most people. And if everyone was upgrading to Vista, all the trolls would just say 'thats proof XP sux0rs', you're incapable of doing anything than bashing MS mindlessly. I've run Vista x64 for a year, all hardware supported, all apps/games supported and the OS runs great, no crashes, slowness, malware, etc. Other Vista users I know experience the same.
        • good points

          You have some very good points, and the last poll shows proof of the ignorance of the people voting in this poll. They are "taking the word of others." Most everyone who I know in the IT industry that actually knows a thing or two and has tried Vista says it's pretty damn good. The only caveat I hear about nowadays is that it's just so different that it takes a while to get used to. Hardware is no longer a problem, crashing isn't a problem, security is pretty much the best you can get for a useable desktop system.

          The industry however is momentum based, and thus with the momentum the anti-hype created when Vista was first released it will take a bit to turn around.

          But again, very good points, no one adopted XP when it was first released, and we had less of publicity momentum problem because ignorant blogging was not as wide-spread at the time.
          • Re: proof of the ignorance of the people voting in this poll

            Not everybody NEEDS to upgrade. There office is set up around Windows XP, they have all the hardware and software that runs on XP, and **all their employees are trained in using XP profeciently **.

            Why upgrade just because Windows decides to release a new operating system? This is where Microsoft gets under my skin. I can buy a heating system that lasts for 30 years with periodic maintenance. I can install a plumbing system that lasts for 50 years with periodic maintenance. I can buy a car that lasts for 12 years with periodic maintenance. And I don't have to doll out a single penny to retrain anyone! I don't have to worry about parts or service being unavailable.

            Planned obsellecense (sp?) was part of the 60's and 70's. Everyone, with the exception of Microsoft has gone to great lengths to make their products last longer and longer.

            Microsoft only pushes out new operating systems WHEN THEY WANT TO DIG DEEPER INTO OUR POCKETS.

            They can keep Vista. I don't need it.
          • Last question is not necessarily

            an indication of the ignorance of people voting in the poll. For example: the reason I'm not migrating to Vista has nothing to do with 1) that I've tried out Vista and found it wanting (I haven't tried Vista) or 2) because of what other people have said about Vista. However, that's the only two options given by the last question. Just adding one more option like for other reasons might show that 45% for that question is a little bit high.

            My reasons for not migrating to Vista are simple. I have no compelling reason to do so. First, if I upgrade my home computer then I won't be able to use the VPN for access to my work computer. The drivers for the VPN are still in beta and who knows when they will be released. Second, the custom software that I support does not currently run on Vista and there is no need at present to develop for Vista since the entire company's computers are still running XP and it looks like they are reluctant to switch to Vista due to their CEO's initial experiences with Vista and the VPN. I'm a developer and not a network admin, so its not necessary for me to test or recommend OSes to the company.
            As for my home computer, I have little need for Vista since my current OSes accomplish the tasks that I need. The only reason I would have for installing Vista would be solely out of curiosity and nothing else.
        • I prefer vista...

          ...but seeing as we only upgraded to XP two years ago, I think we'll wait for 7 :P
      • I have to laugh-

        The 20/30 individuals that make statements like the one above...are rather foolish. While MS is nowhere near perfect the people saying companies are abandoning MS are well...fools and obviously either work in a 2 person office or live in their mothers basement.

        Do you realize hardware is a fraction of the IT budget...well I guess you don't when you say the above. Software and Human Capital and training are the 3 top...and MS knows it.

        The pressure is awesome for MS and I love it and while Linux is firmly based in the server market they can't seem to figure out thier anal phincter from a hole in the ground in the workstation.

        Say hello to Mum for us
        • There is usually a good reason to have both

          Windows AND Linux. They have each their advantages.
          Vista needs a new kernel first though.
        • Total Cost of Ownership doesn't necessarily count.

          Yes! The best way to counter low entry cost products is to tout Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), which accounts for training, people costs and software.
          That is what IBM, SUN, HP etc did when Microsoft first started pushing into the enterprise market. The low entry costs are such compelling idea to many (beginning with smaller) companies. Those companies belatedly ran TCO campaigns, but Microsoft kept pushing the low cost of entry. After a period of time (IT was not usually consulted on this) departments, or managers would "bring in a Windows Server" and it grew. With the final costs of the plethora of Windows Servers being greater than the original architecture it replaced.

          Microsoft is not stupid! It recognised the the threat of Linux very early on. Linux is able to come into an organisation as a low bid. Just as Microsoft did many years ago, when competing against the incumbents (IBM, SUN, HP, etc).

          You may say that Microsoft has far more, and better applications, than Linux. So did IBM etc in the 80's and 90's. The original Microsoft applications were "adequate". They were just able to do the job.
          Linux, currently, has adequate applications. (They may even be good. It doesn't matter) It is the Cost of Entry that is important. Linux has a very good case here.

          Small businesses will go for the low cost of entry. Large infrastructure costs are to be avoided.

          Microsoft knows this.
          I am Gorby
      • The enterprise doens't need to ...

        ... throw away anything. The enterprise will only add Vista as they replace old obsolete hardware with Vista-capable hardware.

        BY early 2007, most enterprises had already begun testing Vista with their mission-critical applications and by now, most already have a plan to solve those problems one way or another but they are NOT hanging onto XP.
        M Wagner
        • exactly

          Initially, during testing we continued to roll out XP images on new hardware. Once testing was done and we confirmed that Vista was faster, more stable, far more reliable and scalable than any of the alternatives (including staying with XP) we started rolling new hardware out with Vista.

          Up to several hundred now, and it's been an all around wonderfully received project.
        • I think they will hang onto XP as many still do 2000

          I am hanging on to XP, I have to. I have mission critical apps that dont work on XP and the developer has no plans to make them compatible with future versions of Windows.

          Many developers make and test there software with a reliable and stable version of Windows, XP/2003 or 2000 for example and they quite often stipulate in contracts that these versions must be used otherwise they will not provide support.