Don't wait for Windows 7: realize the benefts of Vista now

Some customers are considering whether to deploy Windows Vista or whether to skip in anticipation of Windows 7.
The discussion is often phrased as one of balancing costs and timing of releases. By not deploying Windows Vista, it means missing out on the proven benefts such as better security, productivity, search, mobility, manageability, and infrastructure optimization. Windows Vista works with more applications and devices than ever before and can be signifcantly less expensive to support than Windows XP SP3.

There is no need to wait for Windows 7. It is a goal of the Windows 7 release to minimize application compatibility for customers who have deployed Windows Vista since there was considerable kernel and device level innovation in Windows Vista. The Windows 7 release is expected to have only minor changes in these areas. Customers who are still using Windows XP when Windows 7 releases will have a similar application compatibility experience moving to Windows 7 as exists moving to Windows Vista from Windows XP.

Historically, mainstream deployment occurs not when Microsoft releases a product but 18 months later. While the mainstream deployment cycle is beginning for Windows Vista now, it isn't expected to begin for Windows 7 until at least mid-2011

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Google Seals Deal For New Offices At NASA Center

Next Story

Google's Summer Promo

27 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Windows Vista Service Pack One Runs Completely Horrible On My 3 Computers That Are Capible Of Running It (It Runs Very Slow, It Takes A Whole Lot Of Time 2 Boot Up And Shut Down, And It Makes A Whole Lot Of Hard Disk Drive Clatter Even When I Am Away From My Computer), As A Result, I Have Completely Stopped Using It, And I Am Now Using Both Microsoft Windows Server 2008, And Open Source Linux Ubuntu 8.04 Long Term Support Desktop Edition As A Duel Boot Scenerio, Just FYI. In My Opinion, Microsoft Needs 2 Recall All Sold Copies Of Windows Vista, And Give Everyone Who Bought This Defective Operating System A Full Refund, Also Just FYI.

WHAT THE F...!
God sake neowin is an advertising platform now, it's so pathetic. Next you will see lameFone 3ghey adverts all over the site, abismul

Right. And if Apple put out a document that said "Don't wait for 10.6, get Leopard RIGHT NOW" people would not only praise it, they would rush to apple.com with their credit cards ready.

Double-standards are soooo awesome.

Microsoft is obviously trying to sell more software (what a shocking motivation behind a profit-driven corporation!) But unlike Apple who takes the "I'm a Mac, let me insult your intelligence, PC User!" they at least take a mature approach to it.

"The discussion is often phrased as one of balancing costs and timing of releases. By not deploying Windows Vista, it means missing out on the proven benefts such as better security, productivity, search, mobility, manageability, and infrastructure optimization. Windows Vista works with more applications and devices than ever before and can be significantly less expensive to support than Windows XP SP3."

All true points and a good discussion. Does this automatically mean you should jump Vista? No. Microsoft is making many resources available to individuals and businesses to help them understand the improvements between Vista and XP so they can make a well-informed decision about upgrading. When they say "there is no need to wait for Windows 7" they are simply trying to defeat the mis-informed consumer mindset that Vista should be skipped in favor of Windows 7.

All this article really says is that you can have many of the benefits of Windows 7 now in Windows Vista and should consider the improvements over Windows XP to make a well-informed upgrade decision.

Personally, I am not upgrading to Vista. But I didn't jump on the "anti-Vista" bandwagon, I made an informed decision. That's all Microsoft is really asking for.

Great! It is good to know that many people still make sensitive posts...

Personally, i think that people/businesses that are thinking about upgrade should not ponder waiting to Windows 7, because we will be at square 1 when it comes out. Some people will face some issues, compatibilities here and there (hopefully less than when Vista came out) and overall, they will wait a little longer because of that.

The waiting time will be extended by this and by that time, they should be using Vista because XP won't have more updates or fixes coming.

I recommend Vista to average users and businesses, but in the end, it is personal preference.

If i had XP and where thinking on upgrading OS, will do it this year and not wait for Windows 7.

Microsoft is just telling you the very same thing.

(C_Guy said @ #5)
Right. And if Apple put out a document that said "Don't wait for 10.6, get Leopard RIGHT NOW" people would not only praise it, they would rush to apple.com with their credit cards ready.

Double-standards are soooo awesome.

Microsoft is obviously trying to sell more software (what a shocking motivation behind a profit-driven corporation!) But unlike Apple who takes the "I'm a Mac, let me insult your intelligence, PC User!" they at least take a mature approach to it.

"The discussion is often phrased as one of balancing costs and timing of releases. By not deploying Windows Vista, it means missing out on the proven benefts such as better security, productivity, search, mobility, manageability, and infrastructure optimization. Windows Vista works with more applications and devices than ever before and can be significantly less expensive to support than Windows XP SP3."

All true points and a good discussion. Does this automatically mean you should jump Vista? No. Microsoft is making many resources available to individuals and businesses to help them understand the improvements between Vista and XP so they can make a well-informed decision about upgrading. When they say "there is no need to wait for Windows 7" they are simply trying to defeat the mis-informed consumer mindset that Vista should be skipped in favor of Windows 7.

All this article really says is that you can have many of the benefits of Windows 7 now in Windows Vista and should consider the improvements over Windows XP to make a well-informed upgrade decision.

Personally, I am not upgrading to Vista. But I didn't jump on the "anti-Vista" bandwagon, I made an informed decision. That's all Microsoft is really asking for.

Totally agreed

Well duh, of course they want you to do that. :-p

It's a freaking Word document on Microsoft.com. In other news, read how Linux may realize your dreams entirely for free at Ubuntu.com. :-p

They forget that Vista costs money and Windows 7 may be out late next year already. And that XP still works, and works well, for a lot of people.

The result of that formula is not to uninstall XP, purchase Vista, install it, and reconfigure your reinstalled apps.

I don't think it is that simple. A lot of Enterprices pay for Vista, even when they don't use it. It is a matter of upgrading or not.

OMG they posted it with the same typo here! :p

"It is a goal of the Windows 7 release to minimize application compatibility for customers who have deployed Windows Vista since there was considerable kernel and device level innovation in Windows Vista.

HAHA... i DONT think that's what they're trying to do ROFL!

I'd like to know how they claim that people are 'deploying' Vista. Microsoft still havent fixed the sysprep bug which makes an unattended Vista deployment impossible.

(omganinja said @ #2)
I'd like to know how they claim that people are 'deploying' Vista. Microsoft still havent fixed the sysprep bug which makes an unattended Vista deployment impossible.

May i ask what this sysprep bug is?

(majortom1981 said @ #2.1)

May i ask what this sysprep bug is?


You put the network location in the unattended.xml file an it just ignores it. So when you deploy, all the machines boot up and ask you to select a network location.

(omganinja said @ #2)
I'd like to know how they claim that people are 'deploying' Vista. Microsoft still havent fixed the sysprep bug which makes an unattended Vista deployment impossible.

You mean the glitch that's easily fixed by 5 seconds of net searching and adding the following to the xml file?

Vista Sysprep.xml fix

(GreyWolfSC said @ #2.3)

You mean the glitch that's easily fixed by 5 seconds of net searching and adding the following to the xml file?

Vista Sysprep.xml fix


Yay a ****ty workaround that I already knew about. If I wanted a patchwork network I'd deploy win98, 95, maybe a few linux distros here and there. I want a real fix.

(omganinja said @ #2.2)

You put the network location in the unattended.xml file an it just ignores it. So when you deploy, all the machines boot up and ask you to select a network location.
This is so minor and it doesnt stop you from deploying vista at all. I have pushed this out to several machines at once, as soon as vista boots up I end up having to do some other tweaks that an answer file just wont cover, it takes all but two seconds to click WORK. This bug isnt even worth mentioning.

(Gotenks98 said @ #2.5)
This is so minor and it doesnt stop you from deploying vista at all. I have pushed this out to several machines at once, as soon as vista boots up I end up having to do some other tweaks that an answer file just wont cover, it takes all but two seconds to click WORK. This bug isnt even worth mentioning.

Haha you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Are you saying that clicking work on over 200 workstations is easy? Might aswell install the OS and software on each PC manually, the point of deployment is automation, sysprep doesnt deliver this and therefore is a bug worth mentioning.

(omganinja said @ #2.4)

Yay a ****ty workaround that I already knew about. If I wanted a patchwork network I'd deploy win98, 95, maybe a few linux distros here and there. I want a real fix.

Hah, anybody wanna bet this guy never heard of the fix until now and still dosen't have a clue what to do with the xml file?

(hapbt said @ #2.7)

Hah, anybody wanna bet this guy never heard of the fix until now and still dosen't have a clue what to do with the xml file?


Anybody wanna bet...get ****ed. Cause its oh so hard to put a reg add command into the section of the xml files where you add commands. I want a real fix, not a band-aid. Others might be happy with half assed software, but when I pay for a something, I expect it to work.

(omganinja said @ #2.8)

Anybody wanna bet...get ****ed. Cause its oh so hard to put a reg add command into the section of the xml files where you add commands. I want a real fix, not a band-aid. Others might be happy with half assed software, but when I pay for a something, I expect it to work.

Why so serious?

(omganinja said @ #2.4)

Yay a ****ty workaround that I already knew about. If I wanted a patchwork network I'd deploy win98, 95, maybe a few linux distros here and there. I want a real fix.

Do you want it to make you a coffee and give you a happy ending as well?