Windows XP has been granted another stay of execution. The news will unleash another avalanche of hate on Windows Vista. Don't throw rocks at me, but I think it's unfair.

At my previous employer, I wrote a lot about Vista, and used it on some review PCs, but for everyday work the company was welded to XP. 

Now, as a free agent spending 20 hours a week embedded inside NBR (where MacOS rules, incidentally) I've actually been using Vista nonstop for several weeks.

In many respects, it beats the pants of XP. Vista is undeniably easier for setting up home or office networks. Vista has Mac-like (that is, much, much better than XP) skills at handling music, photos and video. Vista's search function is easier to access, and covers more files (including email), and Vista's file manager is faster, and easier to follow. Vista is more secure, and more stable.

Yes, Vista had teething issues with drivers, as with any OS. Yes, it's relatively hardware hungry. Yes, Vista is expensive ($499 for an Ultimate Edition upgrade is just silly at a time when you can get a decent spec PC for $800 to $1200; but $249 for Home Premium or Vista Business is better, and you're probably paying no more than $100 with a new PC). No, I don't bother using the Aero interface or Gadgets much. And, yes, the User Account Control (UAC) prompts annoyed the heck out of me before I switched them off.

But the pros easily outweigh the cons. So why the Vista backlash? The new OS has served as a lightening rod for all the static that built up against Microsoft during its monopoly era. It's also fallen victim to IT departments' inertia. XP does the job fine, and after half a decade it fits like an old pair of shoes. So why change?

See also:
Windows 7 alpha to ship Oct 27, Microsoft NZer: ‘we’ve taken punches’