The right Vista strategy: Do nothing

Most analyst firms were excited about Windows Vista in 2006, when it was on the verge of being released. But for several firms, that enthusiasm withered as it became clear that Vista is a flawed OS that few users actually want.

Gartner has been among the most consistent doubters of Vista, warning businesses in November 2005 that the Vista migration would be long and slow, with most IT shops not able to fully deploy it until 2009 — advice it still holds to. And today its view on Vista has soured considerably.

[ Tell Microsoft to keep XP indefinitely: Sign our petition, and add your voice to our video pleas. ]

On the other side, Forrester Research started out cautious, estimating in 2006 that Vista upgrade momentum would be small compared to that for XP — a view it reiterated in 2007. But more recently, Forrester’s analysis has taken a “glass half full” tack, one that acknowledges the lack of enthusiasm for Vista while arguing that IT has no choice but to adopt Vista, so it might as well start.

Doing nothing is the safest, least risky course

Actually, IT does have a choice. Fittingly, it’s the easiest — and cheapest — one to make: Stick with XP.

Think about it: Vista requires a significant hardware upgrade. Throw in software updates, testing, and training for both IT and end-users, and you are looking at several thousand dollars per employee. And for what?

Doing nothing avoids hard-dollar expenses, as well as the hidden costs of business interruption. And XP works. About three-quarters of businesses run XP today, and they can simply keep doing so. They can use the same software they have now, and the same hardware as well. And if it is time to refresh their hardware, they can do so, gaining much better performance by keeping XP on it.

An uncertain future shouldn’t justify an unwanted investment

Forrester argues that because Vista’s successor, Windows 7, is a complete mystery in terms of schedule and functionality, businesses can’t afford to wait before making a decision on Vista. That’s one way to look at the glass. Another way would be to view the fog around Windows 7 as an invitation to do nothing on Vista.

Why should you believe the transition from Vista to Windows 7 will be any more, or less, painful than the transition from XP to Vista, or from XP to Windows 7? Unless you specifically want Vista, why would you pay thousands of dollars per user to get it as a holding action until Windows 7 is clear?

Forrester’s other main point for its Vista-as-holdover analysis is that Microsoft will end XP support in spring 2009. So what? How much support do you actually need for XP at its current level of maturity? Very little, if any. The minor tweaks in XP SP3 attest to that.

Moreover, Microsoft will continue offering security upgrades through spring 2014 — plenty of time for the fog to clear around Windows 7, assuming it is even relevant six years down the road. After all, it’s likely you’ll rely much more on cloud computing and desktop virtualization in that time frame, calling into question whether the new Windows will even matter that much.

Defeatism is not the right strategy

Forrester’s approach is defeatist. And following its analysis means ceding control of IT to Microsoft’s desire to sell you something new, rather than make it earn those dollars by giving you something you actually want.

Instead, IT can use the savings from sticking with XP to invest in technologies that will have a lasting, positive impact on your organization: Take advantage of Windows Server 2008, experiment with cloud computing and desktop virtualization, enhance your data protection strategy, or pump money into customer-facing apps that increase your earnings.

XP is fine. It’s reliable. It’s a good performer. It’s familiar. It’s trustworthy. Why trade it in for an Edsel or a murky promise?