Microsoft this week lashed out at the "schizophrenic" analysts at Forrester, calling them out on the incongruity of alternatively recommending and then panning Windows Vista in two different and recently released reports. In a post to the Windows Vista Blog, Microsoft representative Chris Flores wrote that his company was disappointed that Forrester was more interested in "making sensationalist statements rather than offering a thoughtful industry perspective."
In April, a Forrester report recommended that "most clients start the migration to Windows Vista sooner rather than later," refuting the widely-accepted if uneducated opinion that Vista is "a risky bet." Not so, the report claims. "As businesses of all regions, sizes, and industries struggle with how to settle this debate, Forrester sees five business reasons for your company to start its migration to Windows Vista soon. ... Returns from early adopters have been impressive."
The more recent Forrester report, issued last week, claims however that Windows Vista has been "rejected" by enterprises and that customers should consider waiting for Windows 7, which is due in 2010. Flores says that Microsoft, "millions of [its] enterprise customers," and "some pesky statistics" don't agree with that assessment. He also calls out the fact that "even Forrester doesn't agree with Forrester," referring to the dueling reports.
More important, perhaps, the early Forrester report showed that Windows Vista adoption was proceeding as fast or faster than did XP adoption at the same time in that product's life cycle. This basic truth undermines the notion that businesses are rejecting Vista. "We've sold 180 million copies of Windows Vista so far, 40 million of which were in the last quarter alone," Flores noted. "There are thousands of enterprise customers deploying Windows Vista by the thousands of seats on a weekly basis, including heavy hitters like The United States Air Force, PPG Industries, and Cerner."
Flores didn't pull any punches in describing the true aim of the more recent Forrester report, an opinion I happen to agree with fully. "There's a mountain of evidence to refute this report, including multiple reports from Forrester and other top-tier analysts," he wrote. "This [more recent report] appears to be more focused on making sensationalist statements, rather than offering a thoughtful industry perspective, based on conversations with IT operations professionals or deep knowledge of enterprise deployment cycles. How is this useful guidance to customers? It's disappointing to see such a respected organization like Forrester take this approach."
Yes it is.
End of Article
)
)
)
Register
I implemented Vista Ultimate 64 Sp1.
Vista 64 is by far the worst product ever released by MS.
It is full of bugs for which the first two levels of MS support have no solutions.
It performs badly compared with XP. Many of us day traders have noticed that, on the same PC XP versus Vista, Vista 64 runs more than 10% slower and has extraordianry I/O rates.
Vista (64 bit) conflicts with Office 2007 Word and Excel.
Many software firms have no working versions available for Vista 64 yet - Adobe Reader, Adobe Flash Player, Zone Alarm Pro firewall to name just three major ones.
Vista is chock full of unnecessary security to, I suppose, protect us from ourselves since the amateur developers of MS know what is best for us right? Yeah, right. Took me days to find out how to turn off all of the ridiculous security.
Plus there is that infernal 30x/second checking to see if I am a pirate (never been, never will be), MS wants to protect Hollywood, etal, using my PC's processing cycles and I/O, without my permission and without compensating me for using my PC in a manner for which MS defininately does NOT have my ok to do. This piracy checking is part of the reason for Vista's poor performance.
So, Paul, what ARE you smoking?
tachyonv July 29, 2008 (Article Rating: