Conclusion

Posted on 13 Nov 2007 at 11:56

Winner: Vista!

It took Microsoft six years to produce a new desktop OS after the success of Windows XP, and what has it got to show for it? A narrow victory - both in our tests and the opinion of the 800 readers who filled in our online survey.

While it's hardly cause to start popping champagne corks in Redmond, Vista's modest triumph must be placed in context. Many of the areas in which Vista still lags behind XP - performance, responsiveness, networking - could easily be addressed in service packs. Microsoft has already fixed issues such as the laboured transfer of large files and problems resuming from sleep modes with Windows hot fixes. And with the company admitting that SP1 is nothing more than a giant bug fix, there's every chance that more of those performance issues will be righted by next year.

Although our Gaming and entertainment section awards Vista a narrow victory, that's largely due to the superb Media Center facilities. Gaming remains disappointing with Vista, but once again it could become one of its strengths if graphics cards makers and software developers manage to eke the promised performance from DirectX 10 hardware.

On the business side, Vista offers many advantages for both SMBs and large enterprises, but until issues surrounding reliability, compatibility and performance are resolved many will stick with the devil they know. The news that Microsoft is allowing PC makers to offer XP downgrades on PCs preinstalled with Vista Business and Ultimate doesn't bode well, but the arrival of SP1 could provide a timely confidence boost.

Having made such a hullaballoo about Vista's security, Microsoft can at least take comfort from the fact that our experts and PC Pro's readers are convinced the new OS is safer than its predecessor, although the company may need to look again at the constant nagging of UAC if it wants to prevent users from switching off a potentially critical feature.

It also appears to be a job well done on the new interface, with most people appreciating Aero Glass and the redesigned Start menu.

History repeating

Yet, even if Vista is an improvement over XP, it's hardly the blow-your-socks-off success you might expect from an OS that's spent six years in development. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised: Microsoft has a long history of following up hits with abject misses. Windows 95 redefined the history of computing, but Windows 98 prompted even more Blue Screens of Death than its already wobbly predecessor, until the Second Edition was released in 1999. Windows 2000 brought stability and reliability to business PCs and servers, but Windows ME was a mess.

In 2001, Windows XP finally delivered a consumer version of Windows that wouldn't need restarting at least twice a day. And so we arrive at Vista - an OS that hasn't done anything terribly wrong, but lacks enough killer features to put clear daylight between it and XP.

So is Vista ultimately worth the upgrade from XP? As PC Pro's editor points out in his column, it's difficult to justify the expense of upgrading your current PC to Vista unless you're a real enthusiast - in which case you probably already have. Nor is there a desperate need to buy a new system, as there's little you can do in Vista that you can't already do in XP. However, if it's time to buy a new PC or notebook, Vista is a better OS than XP (although businesses should still tread with caution).

The good news is that, if history is anything to go by, the next version of Windows is set to be a belter. And if the rumoured timelines are correct, we could be seeing Windows 7 in 2009. For many PC owners, it probably can't come too soon.