You've got to hand it to Microsoft. It hates ANYTHING and ANYONE that gets in its way of selling its software.
Including, apparently, itself.
In a very funny turn of events, Microsoft is out preaching to the industry that XP is a bloated expense hog, while svelte Vista will cure world hunger (or, at least, cost less), as Paul Krill notes:
According to research conducted by Wipro and GCR Custom Research, total cost of ownership for Windows XP is $4,407 annually, while Vista's cost is $3,802. The $4,407 figure was derived from costs of hardware, software, IT labor, and user costs....
Peculiarly, the study actually was based on XP usage and extrapolations based on Vista capabilities because there was not a substantial base of Vista clients in use yet when the study was done early in 2007....
Reducing vulnerabilities and utilizing security policies presents savings, noted Bill Barna, principal consultant at Wipro. Security savings alone were estimated at $55. "If you can reduce the number of core vulnerabilities, you can basically have the savings flow throughout the entire security model," Barna said.
Imagine the kind of savings you could get if you just stopped using Windows altogether! Few to no security issues. Less administration. Etc.
By the way, the study claims that switching to Vista saves on hardware costs. How could this possibly be, when everything I have ever read on Vista is that it is a resource hog? You spend more on hardware with Vista, not less.
Anyway, Microsoft must really be hurting if it has to resort to beating up on its most stable product in years. It's clearly desperate to get people to move off XP (you know, the Windows OS that actually has hardware/peripheral support, a lot of software written for it, needs a lighter hardware platform, etc.). Maybe the open-source crowd should just wait for Microsoft to beat itself into oblivion.