Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ignore Vista Until 2008

Posted by Zonk on from the so-sayeth-the-wizard dept.

Blakey Rat writes "According to Gartner in a research note entitled 'Ten reasons you should and shouldn't care about Microsoft's Windows Vista', businesses should wait until 2008 before installing Windows Vista, or 'pursue a strategy of managed diversity' by only bringing in new machines with Windows Vista and not upgrading existing computers. Although acknowledging the security benefits of upgrading, they explain in the report that most of the security-related benefits that come with Vista are available today through third-party software products."

11 of 338 comments (clear)

  1. The reason not to upgrade is... by Sinryc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    if its not broke, don't fix it.

    --
    Yay, I have a sig.
    1. Re:The reason not to upgrade is... by BigDork1001 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      if its not broke, don't fix it.

      My NES still works but I bought a SNES. That still worked but I bought a 64 and then a GC. My X-Box still works and someday long after launch I'll get a 360. They weren't broke but I upgraded.

      2000 worked pretty well for the most part(not too broken) but many people are running XP these days. XP isn't too broken but in the future many people will be using Vista. Improvements in functionality, security, and ease of use will eventually lead me to Vista. I don't plan on diving in the day it's released or anything but eventuall I will buy it and install it on my machines.

      --
      "Armed forces abroad are of little value unless there is prudent counsel at home" - Cicero
    2. Re:The reason not to upgrade is... by MoogMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (Unfortunately) this is also the same reasoning for not transitioning over to Linux

  2. Ten reasons?? by d3ac0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Heck. I can give you ONE reason not to move to Vista, and it's all you need.

    Trusted Computing.

    'nuff said.

    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
    1. Re:Ten reasons?? by dumeinst · · Score: 3, Insightful

      aye aye.
      People who don't know what this really implies are going to be dumbfounded when they find out

    2. Re:Ten reasons?? by Proc6 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "The ultimate goal is to lock out cheap independent software (especially, but not limited to, F/OSS)..."

      I never understand comments like these. How exactly does DRM do that? How does DRM "force" a developer to charge a whole lot of money? If DRM were in place today and I was a freeware developer, what prevents me from just issuing a DRM key (or whatever the process is) and making my terms of agreement "anyone who requests one gets one and I charge nothing". Or does Microsoft beat down your door and say "NO, YOU HAVE TO CHARGE $500 PER USER!!11!!"

      If you think that Microsoft is somehow going to force all software developers to pay some rediculous per application fee, thus forcing them all to charge for their app, thus whittling down the market to like 3 major apps, your tinfoil hat is on too tight.

      If there's one thing Bill Gates knows its that his fortune was built on Windows having zillions of developers covering all possible realms of software from Diet Calculators to 3D Animation. Maybe the phrase "Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!" rings a bell. Developers have to eat too, and once all of them can't afford to turn a profit off writing code for Windows unless they're one of the few working at Symantec or Microsoft or Adobe, they'll find a new career or OS to write for.

      About the last scenario Microsoft wants is ONLY the major software developers like Adobe and Macromedia left standing, because they consistantly port their applications to OSX. If you were "forced" to quit using your $50 Paint Shop Pro, and replace it with $500 Photoshop instead, well then theres a 50/50 chance you may just become an OSX customer.

      Microsoft may be corporate-evil, but they definately believe in small developer shops and know legions of developers and all their varying business models from freeware to $5,000/user licenses are the foundation of the Microsoft machine.

      --

      I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!

  3. Re:Summary: Too Little, Too Late by dslauson · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Seems as if Gartner, the analyst who was deeply in love with Microsoft in the nineties, has turned sour on them lately."
    Keep in mind that he's still recommending Windows. He's not so soft on it that he's tell you to install Linux or BSD.

    To me, it sounds like the guy's not really trying to rip on Windows, so much as he's offering sound business advice. Right? I mean, what's the benefit of rushing out and buying the latest version when the current one coupled with the third party software that you probably already have installed, is perfectly adequate?

  4. Re:Amazing by smartin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Exactly, I wish I had mod points to mod you up. Each new generation of Microsoft operating system is suppose to fix the problems of the past, but each new generation continues to have them. The reason of course is that they simply can't throw the old crap away because they want backwards compatibility. M$ should really take a lesson from Apple when they switched to OS X. Toss the old code base and start new with a tried and true Unix kernel. Provide an emulation environment if you have to but toss it all out and go with what is known to work.

    --
    The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
  5. You need 10 reasons? by vertinox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I only need 4 reasons not to upgrade.

    1. OS X
    2. Ubuntu
    3. Win2000
    4. $250

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  6. "Upgrade" boycott doesn't ignore Vista by CDPatten · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A big problem with his premise is no companies would be able to purchase a computer from Dell, HP, IBM, etc. until 2008. As soon as Vista is released they will stop offering XP (almost immediately), and start offering only Vista. It's the way of the world. You can erase vista and install XP, but that would be foolish, not to mention they got a license for Vista with the purchase of the machine.

    I'm also disagree with his reasons, but I'm not going to take the "flame-bait" ;)

    1. Re:"Upgrade" boycott doesn't ignore Vista by Whatchamacallit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Big companies have corporate site licenses for Windows without Product Activation, etc. We install WinXP or Win2k from the network. We boot a new machine out of the box with a networkable boot cd and kick off a ghost image onto the hardware. The only people actually installing Windows onto hardware the manual way are engineers putting together a new ghost image. The boxes coming from HP, IBM, etc. are never even booted into the OS that comes with them before they are wiped out. The engineers will probably play around with Vista but it is unlikely they will approve it for rollout to 12,000+ PC's until at least the first service pack.