Save XP? Why bother?

I'd love to defend Microsoft Vista against Mac, Linux, or some obscure OS -- but instead, I find myself defending it against Windows XP. That's because all I hear is warring from within the Microsoft community about how unfair it is that they will one day have to stop using XP -- a sentiment perpetuated by InfoWorld's Save Windows XP campaign.

First off, no one is forcing you to do anything. The only step Microsoft is taking so far is to stop selling XP six months from now. If you want to keep using a seven-year-old OS with security holes a-plenty, go ahead. Who's stopping you? Hey, install Windows 95 too, while you're at it. But you can't expect Microsoft to indefinitely support XP when it's poured so many resources into developing its best OS to date in Vista.

The fact of the matter is, Vista is incredible. I've been working with it since Beta 3, and I won't return to that cartoon-looking XP for anything. Not only is it more secure than XP, it includes a host of invaluable new tools and applications (more on those in a bit).

Yes, Vista is more resource-intensive than XP. Yes, upgrading from XP to Vista requires putting some cash on the table. But Vista beats XP hands down, and the Save XP campaign amounts to unfairly criticizing Microsoft for adhering to a core capitalist practice: retiring an old product to sell newer, better ones.

For years, one of the biggest complaints about XP (and Windows in general) was its lackluster security. So in Vista, Microsoft created a slew of powerful security features, including User Account Control (UAC), Address Space Layout Randomization (ASLR), Windows Service Hardening, Windows Integrity Control, Windows Resource Protection, and other behind-the-scenes solutions. (If you've never heard of these, read chapter four of my book "Tricks of the Microsoft Windows Masters".) Microsoft has also included Parental Controls that reside at the OS level to provide added protection for families, and Bitlocker technology to completely encrypt the data on a laptop for traveling businesspersons.

These much-anticipated security enhancements should be reason enough for Windows shops to upgrade to Vista, yet they represent just a portion of the OS's advantages over XP. There's also enhanced collaboration possibilities, improved built-in diagnostics and self-healing, and simplified networking.

Getting more granular, Vista delivers enhanced search capabilities that can save a user a tremendous amount of time. Power management with Group Policy settings allows for reduced carbon emissions and savings. Admins have greater control through Multiple Local Group Policy Objects (MLGPOs). There's also increased support for Tablet PCs, which could lower TCO by 14 percent for mobile PCs each year. Most important, of course, there's a cool new interface for solitaire! Yet despite all the advantages Vista holds over XP, customers have continued to resist, throwing up other arguments for not upgrading.

One such argument: Critics complain that some of their applications won't work properly with Vista or that drivers aren't available. Why is that Microsoft's fault? Look, XP was released in 2001, Vista in January 2007. Why aren't customers complaining to their software vendors for not doing their job of developing apps that work with Vista? We knew it was coming for years. Microsoft released the necessary info for it to happen. Some vendors jumped right on it; others were too lazy to support the people and the move to Vista. Maybe they just thought, "Oh, well, we'll wait until SP1."

Here, an enterprise customer merely has to say, "We're going to Vista -- and any software vendor that doesn't support Vista will be dropped from our company." Watch and see how fast everything will start to work with Vista.

As for complaints that Vista is too resource intensive, I've had no problems with that -- then again, I went out and bought new computers. So you know what? Go buy new computers. I'm sorry if you want to keep those dusty, five-year-old systems going a bit longer, but this industry needs cash to keep it moving forward. We get new cars every few years because we want the latest and greatest features, such as GPS, a camera in the back for safety, swivel seats, and DVD players. Do you complain that they cost more? Do you argue with the dealership for not also allowing you to buy a "new" model from 2000? But Microsoft shouldn't develop a new OS -- and charge for it? And the new OS shouldn't require anything more than what your system needed six years ago? Give me a break.

If you read a lot of the comments that people have been adding on the Save XP pages, you might note that an awful lot of people say, "Go to Linux," or "That's why I use Linux." You know, I've never heard a Mac user complain about Apple or their Mac, nor a Linux user complain about Red Hat or whatever version they are using. That's not to say they don't have problems; they just keep the discussion among themselves. But they are having a field day watching Microsoft users fight each other. Ever think they're the ones stirring up this whole Save XP campaign?

You are welcome to express your opinion by commenting to this blog post, or within InfoWorld's Save Windows XP campaign.