This is, no doubt, partly due to an 'if it ain't broke'
policy which sees a fully patched and service packed XP installation as
perfectly acceptable. The bean counters will also have had their say,
and might be of the opinion that Vista does not offer enough in the way
of convincing argument for an expensive upgrade exercise.
However, it could also be as a result of
Microsoft shooting itself in both feet by making it known that Windows
7 will be available within a year. Almost exactly a year ago one news
was quoting a Gartner report suggesting that Intel would
be skipping Vista and blaming the shadow of Windows 7.
I think he has a point, a good one. With Microsoft expected
Windows 7 out before the 'official' January 10 deadline why would anyone now be
considering what will soon be a retrograde OS install?
The bad news, of course, is that by skipping Vista and waiting a year
for Windows 7 to be bug fixed and secured, Microsoft lose out on
upgrade licenses for a good few years.