Funny how I’m putting up all sorts of Vista tips while I, myself, am a self-confessed “un”-fan of Windows Vista. Well, that shouldn’t stop me from giving streamlining tips to Vista users, right?

Anyway, I’ve got plenty of reasons why not to like upgrading to Vista. For one, the cost of hardware upgrade is too much. The minimum 512 of RAM isn’t even close to what is passable Vista experience. The so-called sweet spot is clocked at 2GB of RAM. The Aero interface demands 256MB RAM for your GPU to run smoothly. These demands do not even cover the price of the OS. The only good reason I can think of opting for Vista is to buy it with a new Vista-ready PC (yes, one that’s way beyond the “minimum.”

But then again, here’s one more issue that really compounds matters for Vista users - lack of legacy support. Software makers like Symantec and Adobe are considering Vista support only for their new releases. Older versions will not probably have patches for legacy support. Sure Microsoft released a long-ish list of compatible software. But let’s face it, Vista is not 100% backward compatible.

So this poses a problem with those who already invested much on Vista. Adobe software, for example, are also costly investments. Say, you’ve parted with good money purchasing Adobe CS and encounter some problems along the way on Vista. Where would that leave you? Buy CS3. While you haven’t probably maxed out the returns with CS, Microsoft is “forcing” you to buy the latest ones. And it’s not because Adobe released some shoddy software, it’s because Microsoft changed it graphics core with Vista.

Same goes with games and graphics reliant software and security software too.

While this may not be a really big issue for ordinary users who get the most out of their PCs for the Web and basic productivity routines, it is a cause of concern for bigger entities. Upgrading hardware and software can really cause a big dent on the budget. And as a business, you really have to keep track of spending but Microsoft seems to be putting undue pressure on IT spending.

Source: Computerworld