what makes you think that they want to wait to 2010-11 for Win7+SP1.

Its probably less risky to use Vista in early 2009 when most of the bugs have been ironed out.

New OS's are almost always buggy upon release, just look at XP and Vista both are fine examples.. then there is the risk of release dates beeing pushed forward, that has also happened before.

Comment of Hon?_Ultie won't work due fact software still has to play on O/s. So heres thought two.

Of 100 leading Windows software programs 85 can be made Vista compatible, with over 60 taking little work to convert or playable as is.

Yet heres catch NEWHAM, Even after your crew gets rewritten software going, it will still perform exactsame function as Windows 2000 did. Theres no real great advantage to convert, outside of Lower? cost & its just NOT There, in fact you'd probably end up with O/S based on Same kernal as You presently Use.
Drashek

Perhaps using Vista in Hon councilpersons office will give delight & time needed to get it right. Vista is Much Better to Use, About Software, GO Slow, it may be awhile.
drashek

Large American car with MS logos seen leaving Newham area in the dead of night...

Should be easy to confirm, it would have crashed every few minutes!

Boom boom!

How anyone can go on about productivity benefits from Vista I don't know! The only benefit I could see is my day to day programs would be running faster cos all the 10 years old PCs that had been doing the job, have now been replaced with dual/quad core 2 machines with buckets of RAM just so Vista would run!

Isn't the so called next Op system from MS Out aka Windows 7 if so whats the point in rolling out VISTA.