Is Windows XP good enough?

Paul, First, XP code isn't truely optimised for Dual or Quad core as you know. XP can handle 2 cores, but hasn't been fully written with the dual and quads in mind. XP would need a SP 4 for dual and quad core optimising. Second, it would need some back porting of Vista technologies. A lot of the security enhancements would need to be adapted without slowing down XP. I think we get to that point where MS did with early Longhorn builds where it can't do it. Thats why I believe they switched over to the Server 2003 codebase. I think XP reached the limit of NT code based and needed to be retired. Vista just needs further refinement. I believe SP 1 was in the right place, just as XP SP 1 did. But I believe most of the issues like every Windows version, gets resolved with SP 2. I think people are holding on to XP mostly because of bad press reporting around Vista. Half of the complaints don't even hold water anymore thanks to SP1. But MS has its work cut out in Vista and Seven.

I understand "familiarity" but for goodness sakes, Aero is so much nicer than XP's theme (although I'll admit that the Royale theme in XP Media Center is nice), I don't understand it. I'm one of the hardest people to get to "change" (I still have the same eating habits that I did when I was seven ;) ) but if it's better than the previous "thing" then I'm all for it! I really have this pet peeve about people that are against "progress". They're the same people that hated XP and clung to Windows 98 and 2000 for so long...

Who cares what the thing looks like? Royal Blue XP, Vista Aero, it doesn't matter. Its all about functionality. This is a computer operating system, not a fashion show. The people who hold onto XP because they like the "familiar" blue task bar are so swallowed up in their ignorance that it is amazing they even know how to use a PC at all.

Its very simple. If Value > cost then Vista is a go. Right now there is not enough "Value" to go there. Cost = Licenses, hardware upgrades, software upgrades, deployment costs (IT Staff to create and test deployment methods) and most important USER TRAINING. It can also be a factor once XP is no longer supported, as in a cost to stay with XP. That is not a factor right now. XP can hadle dual core CPU's/core's all day long. NT had support for dual CPU's, 2000 did as well, and added Hyperthreading with a SP. XP has had dual CPU and Hyperthreaded support since day 1. Quadcore no. That said how many applications can even use more than one core?

I have to say that I really feel for Microsoft here. They're trying to improve the interface and face all of these complete idiots that can't handle any form of change. How is the computing desktop supposed to evolve when even the incremental changes introduced in Vista are rejected by "IT Professionals" as well as consumers. IT admins are always aiming at making their lives easier instead of worrying about things like user productivity or education, and that really sucks. I think consumers are capable of more change then they're given credit for. It takes a bit of time investment, but even my mother-in-law was able to learn the Mac from Windows. And that's a bigger jump than from XP to Vista. Maybe MS hasn't done a good enough job pitching Vista, but man, to prefer the hideous XP UI to it is sad. On the UI front, I think Vista is overwhelmingly a step forward from XP.