As many people know, I love Windows Vista.  I think it is often sold short and people look at other OSs with rose tinted glasses.  Part of this is due to past faults of Microsoft who once upon a time did have too many BSODs and where security was not taken seriously, but now days security is often placed above usability (although there is very careful attention to both) and BSODs are now more likely to be caused by dodgy unsigned drivers rather than MS code or some rogue application.  Even these occurrences  seems to be few and very far between. 

I believe that while many people criticise Vista, this is often a sheep like repetition rather than 1st hand experience.  Susan has a little post comparing when people say "Vista Sucks", but when pressed with "Have you tried it?" retort with "I've heard" (http://msmvps.com/blogs/bradley/archive/2007/09/19/quot-i-ve-heard-quot.aspx).  I still feel that much of Vistas bad press comes from the  "I've heard" camp.

Just to stress this further Microsoft Watch commented on the double standards of operating systems at the moment and I felt a very strong kinship with the comments raised in the article, of which I have a snippet below.  It is also interesting to see that while Microsoft has to deal with a gazillion different hardware and software combinations that Apple have managed to blue screen their new OS which has a much smaller base of hardware and software (Leopard install issues).  It really upset an "Apple fanboy" who was shoving his Leopard disk in my face to discover the blue screen issue!!

This week, a number of tech journalists gave glowing reviews of Leopard. They received the software on Mac Book Pro laptops provided by Apple. Nowhere have I seen anyone gripe about conflicts of interest. But when Microsoft's PR agency sent bloggers preloaded Vista notebooks ahead of the operating system's launch, there were ridiculous accusations of attempted bribery. The accusations made it difficult for those receiving the Vista units to say anything positive about the operating system.

Yesterday, I casually spoke (nothing through official channels) with a developer from PlantCML, which provided the reverse-911 system used to warn people in San Diego County to evacuate; wildfires ravaged the county this week. He praised Microsoft, which provided technicians throughout the weekend as PlantCML prepared for impending trouble. It's that kind of behind-the-scene support and service to partners for which Microsoft delivers but doesn't get enough credit.

Contrast Microsoft to Apple, which has a reputation for secrecy and being partner unfriendly. Apple's nearly 200 retail stores compete with loyal dealers and resellers. For years I've heard developers complain about Apple information disclosure; iPhone is the most recent example. Apple's move to Intel processors forced its two largest development partners, Adobe and Microsoft, to switch development tools and do massive recoding to port software.

Apple is perceived to be a progressive company. But it has a spotty record for green computing—even though one of its board members just won a Nobel prize for environmental work. Its record of giving is OK, but not exceptional. Apple has few programs (actually none that I know of) for helping people in emerging markets. Oh, but it's cool, though, and has style.

By contrast, Microsoft's focus for years has been the conversion to digital documents, which is hugely environmentally friendly. The company's chairman is trustee for a charitable organization with billions of dollars to give away. Microsoft's Unlimited Potential program seeks to use technology to empower people in emerging markets.

There's perception, and there's reality.

No question, Microsoft makes lots of boneheaded decisions, for which it is rightly vilified. But the company also deserves more praise than it gets. Meanwhile, strong brand perceptions—and their feel good association—lets Apple off even when it screws up.

Today will be no exception. The blogosphere will praise Leopard as the next best thing ever and use it as more proof why Vista sucks (It doesn't). Meanwhile, there will be little good said about Microsoft's colossal 2008 fiscal first quarter results. Those people acknowledging the earnings results will blame Microsoft for trying to kill Linux and babies in Africa as reasons for its success. The perception: When Microsoft competes, it cheats.

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/the_great_double_standard.html

However, as they say, sticks and stones can break my bones, but name calling doesn't hurt quite so much (or something like that), so it is nice to see that while people might have "heard" bad things about Vista, but a good number of people are buying it (http://www.news.com/Microsoft-sees-Vista-growth-phase-under-way/2100-1016_3-6216345.html?tag=html.alert.hed)!

Nice to know all is still all over the place in the OS game, why someone only last week said Windows NT was the most stable OS in a blog comment here :-)

ttfn

David