Companies 'Blah' About Vista

PreacherTom writes "Those who expected the initial Vista release to generate a wave of hype will be sorely disappointed. While Vista is now available for companies, they do not really appear to care. The situation is the same with Office 2007. Why? Several reasons, not the least of which is expected difficulty in adaptation to the new features." From the article: "Office has an entirely new look and new formats for saving files in Word and Excel. Slick as it is, the new look will take some training to master. And the new file formats, which will be easier to use with high-end corporate programs such as those that run servers, mean users on older versions of Office will have to download a program to open documents and spreadsheets sent with the new technology. 'This thing is not going to be all that easy to roll out,' says Michael Silver, research vice-president at Gartner."

Comments

a new car!

[yagu]

Wait, software doesn't wear out, at least not like cars do. This is where Microsoft has to re-figure the business model. Their products (OS, Office suite, etc.) are so mature people and companies actually have to rationalize moving to the new plan. In the old days migration paths often followed needs -- today most needs are fulfilled. How many thousands of fonts could one possibly want in their documents?

It's time to think about service. It's time to think about customers. It's time to think about humility. Microsoft, other than their monopoly, no longer has a hammer to coerce the public into the new products -- though that's probably enough.

Meanwhile, with all of this talk of a long adoption window, wouldn't this be one of the most opportune times for things Linux to gain purchase (how ironic for a free product)? As companies look at budgets and costs, couldn't Linux now get it's foot in the door? I hope so...

(Note: from the mysterious slashdot future, how ironic -- an article about Microsoft dissing Open Source as insecure because people can look at the code! Looks like Microsoft is hard at work ensuring a glance at Linux and other Open Source software is at least uncomfortable.)

Re:a new car!

[hey]

Well thingd wear out in that they stop support for older OSes.

Re:a new car!

[LWATCDR]

Microsoft is going to "force" the software to wear out.
New file formats are a good way to start.
Not selling the old software.
OEM bundles where the OS and applications are only to be used on that one machine. Get a new computer and pay for a new OS.
I hope that OO.org instead focuses on making the software easier, smaller, faster, and more reliable.

Re:a new car!

[traabil]

Meanwhile, with all of this talk of a long adoption window, wouldn't this be one of the most opportune times for things Linux to gain purchase (how ironic for a free product)? As companies look at budgets and costs, couldn't Linux now get it's foot in the door? I hope so...

If there's no compelling event to swap a perfectly working (sic) XP for Vista, why would one consider moving to Linux? Surely, the migration cost in terms of training need would be even higher for such a move.

Re:a new car!

[diersing]

True. I also wonder if training is really that big a hurdle anymore. As the general public (and especially long term business users) get more tech savvy can't we expect the average user to just need a couple hours of play time to re-learn where the core functionality is? Everything the average user needs is in the ribbons of Office07, its just a matter of learning their arrangement.

Even greater reason to push home users towards Google's Docs & Spreadsheets, but the business users everyone is concerned about aren't mindless cattle anymore. Lets give them credit. Office 2003 & 2007 can be installed in parallel, let them play with it and call it pilot testing.

Re:a new car!

[Joe The Dragon]

It is more then just the training of a new arrangement. It's the Compatibility with older docs with formulas , Add-ins and more need to be updated for 2007 and so on.

Re:a new car!

[Overly Critical Guy]

Wait, software doesn't wear out, at least not like cars do.

Microsoft software is quite a bit different in that regard. It goes bald, its ass sags, and it yells at customers who walk on its lawn.

Re:a new car!

[misleb]

I agree. New file formats are still a pretty strong drive to upgrade. All it takes is a few people in an organization to upgrade by choice... or some customers or perhaps vendors... and suddenly everyone else has to (not necessarily, but people often find it easier to just upgrade to the latest than mess around trying to make th older version read the new docs). This works for Office. I'm not sure what will drive Vista uptake. That is, as long as Office 2007 works on XP...

-matthew

Re:a new car!

[electrosoccertux]

but the business users everyone is concerned about aren't mindless cattle anymore. Clearly you yet to meet my boss.

Re:a new car!

[electrosoccertux]

**you've

Re:a new car!

[Danga]

Clearly you yet to meet my boss.

This is your boss and you are fired. :-)

Re:a new car!

[xmundt]

Greetings and Salutations.
          WHile the temptation to get the flamethrower out is pretty large, I am only going to say that, for a huge percentage of the American workforce, training IS a big hurdle. I spend a lot of my time getting folks introduced to new programs, and, I continually run up against the wall of "too hard to learn". I had a fellow the other day tell me that he did not want to switch from Internet Explorer to Opera because it is "too hard to learn a new browser". Right off the bat, I can't think of many other software tools with a LOWER learning curve than a browser. That, alas, is not all that unusual though. As another example, I know a company that still does all its invoicing on an antique pentium system running XENIX because it is too hard to move to more modern software. This ignores the fact that the newer software is actually EASIER to use than the ancient stuff on the XENIX box, and, is much more powerful.

dave mundt

Re:a new car!

[geekwithsoul]

People (as a collective term), never stop being 'mindless cattle.' It's built into our little monkey brains to 'enjoy' being part of a group. That's not to say that there aren't those who also enjoy blazing trails, as that is also undoubtedly true -- the ability hold conflicting ideas, probably more than anything else, is what really makes us human. That said, humans seem to enjoy the inertia of a paradigm and shifts in that paradigm makes us uncomfortable.

That same maturity of both technology and its users you mentioned is actually the reason people will not want to switch to Vista or Office 2007. Other major format and interface changes for mainstream users (the Win XP crowd now, other MS OSes in the past) all occurred when the technology was rapidly growing. Actual new technologies are now relatively stagnate and we're busy pushing the envelope of what those technologies can do, but the same basic technology (by example TCP/IP, HTTP, and HTML) is pretty mundane now. People are now fairly satisfied with their computing experiences and they will resist change far more than they used to.

As an example, imagine an automotive technology that changed the fundamental way we use cars -- in the U.S. for example, imagine the uproar if automakers suddenly put the driver of the car on the right side or in the middle. They could back it up with studies showing how this was demonstrably a good thing, but no one would like them or buy the cars, because they were comfortable with the existing technology -- warts and all.

Re:a new car!

[diersing]

I'm speaking directly to training - its always one of many things people list as issues to upgrading, I'm trying to widdle the list down.

Re:a new car!

[Threni]

> If there's no compelling event to swap a perfectly working (sic) XP for Vista, why would one consider moving to Linux? Surely, the
> migration cost in terms of training need would be even higher for such a move.

If your USB modem breaks, your 3d graphics card packs up or you decide not to bother playing games on your PC any more then you can move to Linux and save yourself a few hundred pounds every 4 or 5 years.

Re:a new car!

[diersing]

Dave, do you find the hurdles larger when changing from one application to another (IE to Opera) or when there are version changes (2000 to XP)? My assumption would be application changes are larger then upgrades. Maybe I'm lucky in that the companies I've work for have tech-talented workforces but since its all I've known, I assumed they were average.

Re:a new car!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for fcuk's sake. You linux fanboys are a bunch of blithering idiots.

Have you used the beta versions of Office 2007? No? How about Office 2003? XP/2002? 2000? 97? 95?

Every time Microsoft releases a new version of Office, it retains backward compatibility with previous versions. So, when I open a Word 95 document in 2000, unless I designate a "Save As...", it will save it in the Word 95 format. Office 2007 beta is the same. I open tons of Word 2003 version documents, and they save just fine, and those not using the beta have no problems with opening the documents after I have saved the changes I've made.

I know it's a necessity to proclaim the sky is falling whenever MS does something, but you obviously don't use the products you're criticizing, or you aren't a power user, because if you were one or the other, you wouldn't even have gotten up to dance.

Simmer down and get a grip. There is no MS conspiracy to force people to upgrade to Office 2007, and upgrading to Office 2007 will not kill the enterprise.

Re:a new car!

[nine-times]

And lets not forget ceasing hardware support. I remember my upgrade to Windows 98, which was mostly because of improved support for USB. New hardware will come out, and it won't be supported by Windows XP.

Re:a new car!

[diersing]

But taking your automotive analogy to heart means, we should have stopped progressing cars around 1940 (or whenever 20 years after mass adoption happened). Because as its root, the combustible engine, 4 rubber tires, automatic transmission haven't changed significantly enough to warrant an upgrade. What the last 75 years of automotive innovation is about are creature comforts (power steering, power brakes, power seats, heated cupholders, etc) and overall ergonomics and comfort. But other things have come too, things like reliability and safety.

But my point was about training alone, and I think you've confirmed my stance. After all, the seat, steering wheel, gas/break pedals haven't changed. The drivers didn't need to be re-trained when the ignition, headlight switch, radio or glove move moved positions - they adapted. People as a group are cattle I concede. But we're talking about individual users who ARE smarter and more adaptive then we give them credit for.

Re:a new car!

[COMON$]

For our office we are still mainly a Win 2000 server domain. Just now moving to 2003 through attrition. Ya there are perks to moving to the next server/office level but are they worth the cost? Will our office use them? Heck most of our users cant distinguish between word and wordpad. Most users just want to be able to type a report on letterhead, use italics and bold here and there and that is it.

Unless security is an issue, I really see no need to over complicate something with more features when what we have does just fine. You have to show me a product that is major like jumping from NTSP6 to win2K/XP. Where my current OS can handle all the devices I have just fine, my current office product (2003) works above and beyond our needs, I dont need to upgrade until I see an end of life on the product.

With few exceptions I think most seasoned Windows administrators would agree.

Re:a new car!

[diersing]

And that relates to training how? I'm trying to remove "training" as one of the hurdles to upgrading. Obviously functionality should drive your decision, my point is training shouldn't prevent it.

Re:a new car!

[foamrotreturns]

I am afraid that you give far too much credit to the average corporate peon. I work in a highly progressive educational institution, and even the students have trouble picking up new behavior. You can forget about it with anyone over 45.

Re:a new car!

[MrNiceguy_KS]

Boy, is he going to be pissed next time Windows Update runs. He's getting IE7 whether he likes it a lot. In my opinion, there's a lot more UI changes between IE6 and 7 than there are between IE6 and Opera.

Re:a new car!

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. Next time you might want to try "whittling" the list down. (Think, knife + wood)

Re:a new car!

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can forget about it with anyone over 45."

Thanks for that ageist shot. I hope you plan on offing yourself at 44. Everyone has trouble picking up something new. If it was easy we wouldn't need teachers.

Re:a new car!

[tylernt]

New file formats are a good way to start.

New file formats are a double-edged sword. If my new MSOffice documents can't be read by older versions, then I might as well save a bundle of money by switching to OpenOffice.org. At least OOo documents can be read by MSOffice.

Re:a new car!

[Phisbut]

Dave, do you find the hurdles larger when changing from one application to another (IE to Opera) or when there are version changes (2000 to XP)? My assumption would be application changes are larger then upgrades.

Depends on the application. I've seen my coworkers go from IE6 to IE7, as well as from Office 2003 to Office 2007 (we need to always be aware of the latest versions of many software for what we do...), and I must say that the absent menu bar from IE7, and the whole ribbon concept of Office 2007, is rather disorienting. It's actually easier to migrate from IE6 to Firefox than to IE7, and from Office 2003 to OpenOffice.org, than to Office 2007.

People are afraid to learn a new application not because of the application, but because of the UI. If a new version of the same application changes the UI drastically, then it's as hard to learn as a new application.

Re:a new car!

[mackyrae]

I work in a computer store. My boss (OWNER of a COMPUTER STORE) can't work the new POS program (QuickBooks). I walked in my first day and started using it just fine. He's confused by the lack of DOS and lack of F9 to move through sections and F3 to save blah blah blah stuff. Now, it's all point-and-click, and he's royally confused. If a tech can't figure out how to use a new app, what makes you think a Joe & Jo Average are any better?

Re:a new car!

[Yvanhoe]

That is only a problem for anything connected on Internet...
At my local Pizza Hut, I can see an old DOS interface behind the counter.

Re:a new car!

[diersing]

Just because you OWN a computer store doesn't make you a tech - obviously from what you've told me about your boss I would certify he is not a tech if the concept of point & click (in 2006?) is foreign to him.

Re:a new car!

[Anonymous Coward]

this will be distributed as all other windows systems have been: through purchase of new computers. Dell is supporting it, as is HP and whatever other computer companies that include a windows OS.

it doesn't have to be popular & create hype to be successful. its execution of its launch & infiltration of the consumer market.

Re:a new car!

[steelfood]

I disagree. While back then, with no viable competitor, new file formats would justify an upgrade. If clients were sending you office 2003 file but you're running office 97, you're definitely going to want to move to office 2003. However, in this day and age, office is no longer the monopoly it once was. There are three factors hindering the office 2003 to office 2007 transition, and they've largely been covered by other posters here.

To reiterate, first is the completely redesigned interface, and the need for retraining. This will make companies, large and small, reluctant to upgrade. They'll hold off as long as possible. Remember, people in managerial positions and their assistants use office. And for most of these people, who have trouble with technology as it is and who'd spent the better part of the past 10-15 years getting used to office since the days of 5.0, retraining is going to be a very painful process. Add to the fact that they're the decision makers, and you've got even less chance of companies moving to office 2007.

The second is the presence of a half-decent competitor: open office. So what if microsoft stops selling office 2003? Suddenly, open office, with its familiar interface and remarkably similar feature set is going to look very lucrative. And add to the fact that it's free, and there's even greater incentive to move to it if microsoft is foolish enough to stop selling office 2003 outright. Sure, it's not as polished as office 2003. But as long as it can read and write those files, it'll do. New file formats force upgrades only when there's nothing decent available to read and process the old one. Open office isn't stunning, but it'll do for the most part.

The final, and most important factor is the same one that plagued Intel and AMD a few years back. Office 2003 is good enough. Sure, it might be lacking in a few areas compared to office 2007. But people have found ways around those shortcomings already, and having spent many years improving those workarounds, they're pretty efficient by now. Why upgrade to 2007 when the feature set of 2003 is sufficient?

And these are the same reasons people won't upgrade to vista. Sure, vista might be more secure. And at home, it'll find wide adoption because of its OEM bundling. But in the corporate world, people know that an upgrade will cost money. How much depends on the company, but if it's on par or more than the existing security budget for the current windows xp setup, there's no reason to upgrade. And by the time xp goes into extended support, well, there's still a couple of years, and like office, there's an alternative that's gaining popularity. So by the time businesses get around to deploying office 2007 and vista, they might just go, screw it, and start deploying linux instead.

More likely, anything that isn't backwards compatible will hinder the transition rather than help it. The reason why people moved to XP? Because it worked well with 2k. And it had a set of features 2k didn't have that was actually useful. Vista actually was supposed to have some of those nifty features that would encourage people to upgrade. But over the course of its development, they all were eventually canned--put off indefinitely or until a later upgrade pack.

Re:a new car!

[COMON$]

I apologize, I wasn't very clear. It relates in that for our network it isnt the training that is a problem. When we moved from Corel to MS Office the functionality was similar. We offered no training, but we would take calls on quirks. The transition process took over a year. But when it came down to it, only a handful of people out of over a 1000 really noticed a difference other than MS looked prettier. Databases were converted by IT and there are a lot of conversion tools for everything else.

So on our network we wait until there is a function in the new software that our users need, or that makes things easier. Training isnt really a problem unless something drastic happens. I have even converted home/small business users to Open Office because all they really want to do is simple no-training-needed things. The only time training is going to be a hurdle is if you are moving to something TOTALLY different like greenscreen to window environment. I cannot think of any mainstream office/windows products that would necessitate retraining on a massive scale.

Re:a new car!

[macndub]

I, sadly, need more than 256 columns in a spreadsheet. Like most financial analysts, I am pushing for the Office upgrade as soon as possible.

It makes me cry, but there is no effective substitute for Excel.

I don't give a rip about Vista (running OS X at home, and hopefully here at work as well when I need a computer upgrade) but I need a better spreadsheet and it has to be Excel.

Re:a new car!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, software doesn't wear out, at least not like cars do

You obviously have never used Windows. If you don't reinstall periodically, it will wear out and croak.

Re:a new car!

[cjsm]

What, are you talking about something that happened 10 years ago? I don't believe the owner of a computer store in 2006 would be confused by using a mouse.

Re:a new car!

[Anonymous Coward]

no, not yet.

Linux, sadly, with all of its huge advancements, is still not mature enough for mass-usage. Your typical office employee can barely use windows without breaking something or asking questions; imagine if they got wind of the package installation issues in Linux? Too many different variations. Do I have this distribution? Do I have the right kernel? Do I have a dozen or so other libraries or whatever installed too?

Too many questions. People like to look at a box that says: made for Windows whatever and know it will work by putting in the CD and clicking "Next".

Now, that being said, my PCLinuxOS distro is VERY impressive. I havent touched Linux in several years because I grew tired of dealing with all the excess crap and the windowing system being SO POOR compared to a perfectly running and stable Windows XP. Just on a whim though, I've tried it out. I think if the cross-platform maturity scales up on the Linux side (like Linux boxes as clients for Windows Vista servers, etc) and becomes more advertised, then I can see it being a DEFINITE possibility.

Still got a ways to go though. Linux also needs a better Windows application program... WINE sucks the balls y0.

Re:a new car!

[Anonymous Coward]

I plan of offing myself the day before my 30th birthday about six years from now.

Re:a new car!

[ross.w]

It's Office 95 to Office 97 all over again. You wanna try Open Office instead? That probably won't read the new format either until someone reverse engineers it, and even then it won't be 100% compatible any more than the current one is.

Curse you Microsoft! (shakes fist)

Re:a new car!

[aevans]

If current Microsoft offerings are "good enough" that doesn't really brook a desire to switch to Linux.

Re:a new car!

[misleb]

To reiterate, first is the completely redesigned interface, and the need for retraining.

I admit that this is an obstacle. I'm just saying that the new document format is still a significant drive.

The second is the presence of a half-decent competitor: open office. So what if microsoft stops selling office 2003? Suddenly, open office, with its familiar interface and remarkably similar feature set is going to look very lucrative. And add to the fact that it's free, and there's even greater incentive to move to it if microsoft is foolish enough to stop selling office 2003 outright. Sure, it's not as polished as office 2003. But as long as it can read and write those files, it'll do. New file formats force upgrades only when there's nothing decent available to read and process the old one. Open office isn't stunning, but it'll do for the most part.

Switching to OpenOffice doesn't solve the new Office 2007 file format problem. If customers/vendors/other departments start sending you Office 2007 documents, OO isn't going to you help any. Unless OO can read/render Office 2007 documents reliably, of course. Can it?

The final, and most important factor is the same one that plagued Intel and AMD a few years back. Office 2003 is good enough. Sure, it might be lacking in a few areas compared to office 2007. But people have found ways around those shortcomings already, and having spent many years improving those workarounds, they're pretty efficient by now. Why upgrade to 2007 when the feature set of 2003 is sufficient?

You could make the exact same arguments about every other Office release. And yet, people upgraded. Why? Because others are sending you documents that you can't read reliably!

-matthew

Re:a new car!

[Mex]

This man knows. One of the companies I worked for ran their whole accounting system with Windows 95, set up to emulate DOS. They still do, I believe. And they employ about 150 people, contractors not included. The accounting system must be about 15 years old now.

All because no one wants to switch to a new version.

Re:a new car!

[cptgrudge]

Maybe software products could have something like UI transitions. When you install the software, setup asks if you've used a previous version in the past. It will set the UI to mimic the version you're used to, and you'll select a time period over which the software UI will slowly change into the new version. Each time there is a change, integrate a little tooltip or something to tell the user, "This is different!" to train the user in the new way.

Automated training, and the user doesn't even know it! Now I'm wishing MS had this when Clippy was eliminated. Would've warmed my soul to see Clippy mentioning his imminent demise.

"Good morning! Today's change is that I'll no longer exist! Wait...what?! Microsoft! You bast-" *blip*

Re:a new car!

[gral]

> Switching to OpenOffice doesn't solve the new Office 2007 file format problem. If
> customers/vendors/other departments start sending you Office 2007 documents,
> OO isn't going to you help any. Unless OO can read/render Office 2007
> documents reliably, of course. Can it?

OOo will be able to read 2007 files pretty quickly once Office 2007 is released. We already have the 2003 xml formats, so I don't see it taking long at all for an OOo release that does 2007 as well.

Re:a new car!

[Bert64]

Cars, being mechanical devices with moving parts, will wear out...
Parts wear out, they go rusty, once they get to a certain point it stops being economical to keep repairing the car rather than buy a new one.
So there's no alternative to replacing your car every few years, and it obviously makes sense to buy a more modern one.
Software on the other hand, does not deteriorate... In 10 years time it will work just like it did today, so there's far less incentive to replace it.
Also, cars operate in much the same way, whereas software often changes radically, software users often feel compelled to stick with their current versions because new versions behave differently... The same happens with car drivers, but to a much lesser degree, for instance drivers often have their own preference on gearbox type (manual/auto), but there's little else that fundamentally changes the way you operate a car.

Re:a new car!

[Gonarat]

Backwards compatibility isn't the problem -- forwards compatibility is. For example, when Office 97 came out, it had an updated .doc format from Word 95 and Word 6.0 (last version of Word for Windows 3.1). Office 97 would open a document with the older word format with no problem, but companies using Office 95 could not open documents created with Office 97. The end result was the forced upgrade to Office 97 to be able to do business. Now, I don't think there were any major document format changes from Office 97 to Office 2003, so there were less pressure to upgrade.

One problem we have run into is that there are differences between Access 2000 and Access 2003. Access 2003 will open an Access 2000 database with no problem, but those still running Access 2000 cannot open an Access 2003 database. That left our company with 2 choices -- use Access 2000 for development or convert everyone to Access 2003. We are developing in Access 2000 for now, but all new desktops and laptops are getting XP Pro and Office 2003 Professional.

Re:a new car!

[CDPatten]

This guy wrote the piece the VERY DAY it was released!!! He has no numbers, facts, ro anything else to go by.

If you watched Steve Ballmer's keynote you would see quote a few fortune 500 companies ALREADY begining their upgrades
http://www.microsoft.com/business/launch2007/defau lt.mspx

Why does slashdot post this crap? Oh wait thats right. Nevermind.

Re:a new car!

[Drooling Iguana]

The list is too big. He's trying to make it widdle.

Re:a new car!

[mackyrae]

No, he can use a mouse. He's confused by the fact that he has to use it to run an application. He has always used Keynotes, which is a DOS frontend. Everything is done with the F keys. He is confused by having to actually navigate through little drop-down menus on the program. It's like if you only know how to ctrl+c and don't get that "right-click>copy" works.

Re:a new car!

[guruevi]

Software does not wear out but claiming that Microsoft's software is mature is also completely wrong. Would be like telling that nobody wants to buy Toyota's anymore because their cars aren't wearing out fast enough. No, they are not buying Toyota anymore because Toyota sucks and keeps breaking down every so often so they switch or wait until the car is old enough to buy another non-Toyota

The fact that nobody wants to upgrade to Vista is for the following reasons:
      Nobody wants to pay more than $150 for a piece of software especially not in a business except when upgrading hardware. Apple has the price at $128 which is for most consumers just not too high but for most businesses still too much.
      Hardware is powerful enough and thus doesn't need upgraded soon.
      Learning people new stuff is expensive.
      Vista sucks. There is no added value to Windows 2000, even XP wasn't any added value except for some eye candy when managed correctly

Re:a new car!

[BiggyP]

Of course a lot, if not all, of what they need is provided by OpenOffice.org, if they are going to be learning a new UI and trying to handle new default file formats anyway then what's holding them back from trying some of the non MS offerings?

Re:a new car!

[HermMunster]

I don't think any responsible business would be upgrading at this point. Many would be looking at it for possible upgrades and they may have test cases--those who are quality employees pushing their systems. I highly doubt any responsible business would ever consider rolling out Vista and Office 2007 to average employees, even on new computers. Businesses have much to loose if they switch too fast. Considering this is a day or two after the release to businesses it would be extremely irresponsible to push it onto any business employee's desktop. I'd say few if any of the IT people will move to it for the next 6 months or more.

What you are reading is that some businesses are evaluating the changes and planning on migrating. Almost none of them are considering immediately anyway both a switch to Vista and Office 2007 in any material way. They are most likely examining what hardware requirements are, what training is required, etc.

It really does cost a considerable amount to upgrade to Vista and then the added heavy requirements of Office 2007. You can estimate over $700 for both for just software and then another $1000 for hardware for the average machine. Since few if any OEMs are selling Vista machines with Office preloaded and the fact that it takes considerably more to train you won't see any sort of mass migration for at least a year.

Re:a new car!

[Total Cult]

The compelling reason is that one day, Microsoft will stop making security patches for XP.

Re:a new car!

[Divebus]

"The list is too big. He's trying to make it widdle."

Awwwww... how could you miss it?... The WIST is too big! Made me LOL anyway.

Re:a new car!

[sumdumass]

It's actually easier to migrate from IE6 to Firefox than to IE7, and from Office 2003 to OpenOffice.org, than to Office 2007.

Ahh, and now we know why Stevo claimed linux and opensource has microsoft's IP in it. Because he knows it would be easier to migrate away from microsoft then jump into the new fire.

At least that what i think it all comes down to. And this is probably why Novel is still going "WTF, were did this come from".

Dunno, I could be wrong

Re:a new car!

[suckmysav]

I would lay odds that he is an accountant. I've seen far too many beancounters in my time who think that learning to use some arcane text based accounting system makes them some sort of computer guru.

I've had many a beancounter tell me they "know how to program a computer" which on further investigation turns out to mean "I can put =sum(A1:C1) into Excel"

Re:a new car!

[cjsm]

Wow. Well, many people who use computers are amazingly clueless about basic things. At work, just yesterday I had to show someone how to drag a window to the left with the title bar so he could close it with the x icon. It was a child window that was too far right in the parent window. Casual acquaintances of your boss must be shocked when they ask for computer help.

Re:a new car!

[pipingguy]

I spend a lot of my time getting folks introduced to new programs, and, I continually run up against the wall of "too hard to learn".

I've often wondered how much of the 'too-hard-to-learn' complaint comes from slackers that now have a semi-legitimate excuse to wait around for tech support to show them (for the nth time)/fix problems.

Re:a new car!

[Bert64]

If he owns the computer store, why did he not stick to the existing POS system?
It worked, the staff already knew how to use it, any problems it had were known about by now, and it was already paid for.

Re:a new car!

[Bert64]

Because, while XP will continue working in it's current configuration on your current hardware... What are the chances that the hardware will break, or something else will occur to make it necessary to reinstall the OS. Imagine the following scenarios:

XP got corrupted, or your drive failed, forcing you to reinstall... However since XP is no longer supported Microsoft have turned off the activation servers so you cant make XP run for more than 2 weeks, when you call them up they just try and sell you vista.

A piece of hardware died, you couldn't find an exact replacement but you bought what was readily available, XP doesn't support it and the hardware vendor no longer makes drivers for XP.

The entire machine failed, you had to buy a new machine, but XP doesn't run on the new machine.

An exploit comes out for XP, microsoft refuse to patch it because it's unsupported, your machine gets owned.

In any of these scenarios, and more, your being pushed towards buying vista... With Linux, while some of the same issues may apply, the updates are free and can be incremental, ie you can install support for new hardware without updating the whole userland. As a worst case, you can install a new distro of linux, but keep your old one inside of a chroot so your apps are sitting in the environment they expect.

Re:a new car!

[Bert64]

But if you need a better spreadsheet, then excel clearly isn't good enough... What makes you think that future versions will be? Perhaps your time would be better spent making a list of the features you need in a spreadsheet and submitting them to people who are developing spreadsheets... After all, most programmers are not financial analysts, and have very little idea of what features you need unless you tell them!

Re:a new car!

[traabil]

However since XP is no longer supported Microsoft have turned off the activation servers so you cant make XP run for more than 2 weeks, when you call them up they just try and sell you vista.

Where did you pick up that XP is no longer supported?

BTW, I did not say that there wouldn't come a time when a move from XP is right, I just said that the time isn't now.

Re:a new car!

[Bert64]

Your typical office employee doesn't need to install programs, or worry how to install them etc...
Your typical office employee is given a computer and expected to get on with their job, while other members of staff are responsible for installing and maintaining it. I've given KDE and OSX systems to people to do office work on, and people have had little or no problems with them. In some instances they found them easier (programs are named more logically according to their function rather than their vendor) and in the few instances they had problems, it was only because it was *different* to what they were used to... Once it was pointed out that it was different, most people responded along the lines of "yes, that makes sense, i`m just so used to blah".. which shows they've gotten used to illogical and unintuitive ways of doing some things.

Re:a new car!

[Bert64]

Something which ceases to be supported is *NOT* good enough...
In a few years, the current microsoft offerings will cease to be supported, it will not be possible to get new security patches for them, nor will it be possible to acquire new licenses for additional machines, and they may not even work on new machines. I worked at a company recently that had close to 300 NT4 systems, and 6 XP systems... the XP systems existed because several of the original NT4 workstations had suffered hardware failures, and they couldnt get NT4 to work on the replacement hardware.

Re:a new car!

[Bert64]

It was a hypothetical situation pointing out a future possibility if continuing to use xp...
There will inevitably be a time when xp is no longer supported, and due to the activation requirements it will therefore become completely unuseable.

Re:a new car!

[mackyrae]

Because its QuickBooks POS and it's easier on the bookkeeper to have them integrating with each other. He also couldn't scan barcodes and do inventory quickly with the old one. The other staff don't know how to use the old one either. They go "damn! that's like all 1992! here Stanley, uh, you ring 'em up." The rest of the staff don't usually ring things up though, just him. If they do, it's a work order because everyone else is a technician. This is a *little* store.

Re:a new car!

[foamrotreturns]

I don't plan on offing myself at any age. The fact that you wish for me to commit suicide is disturbing, and lends no credibility to your argument, but I will defend my case nevertheless. I grew up with technology. I have kept myself current on it all, and I don't ever plan to lose sight of it. Most of these people I was referring to are Luddites who actively TRY not to learn new things. They actually go out of their way to continue using outdated methods and systems when everyone else is switching to the new thing(s). I don't know why. I think learning new things is easy and fun, but these people have a fear of change, and that is what causes them to get so far behind that they don't have any chance of catching up.
The reason we need teachers is because we need a system for certifying achievement. You can probably teach yourself 95% of what you can learn in school. The teachers are there to administer the tests that prove that you know it.
My comment wasn't ageist - it was realistic.

Why should businesses care anyways?

[Weaselmancer]

I mean, honestly - what does Vista do that XP doesn't? From a business standpoint, of course.

I could see end users getting much happier about Vista. New eye candy, DX10, and all that, but generally businesses don't care about such things.

What is Vista's business argument in the first place? Not trolling, just genuinely curious.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[stokessd]

The business arguement is that sooner or later every new machine that comes through the door will have vista on it. So we will have it, it's just a matter of when and how best to deal with it.

Sheldon

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[Hatta]

I mean, honestly - what does Vista do that XP doesn't?

Fast user switching on a domain.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[diersing]

In small shops maybe, but most mid-size companies and up deploy a managed desktop image (in most cases the manufacturer pre-loads it when the machine is ordered).

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[chill]

Why would I want that? The only place I can think this might be good is on shared computers, but other than public machines I haven't seen a lot of those and they aren't on a domain. Well, if they are, it is with a generic user and they don't switch.

The ONE time I've seen this be useful was terminals on a manufacturing floor. Not for shift workers, as they log in and out on their shift, but for when a supervisor comes over to do something. This is because Windows doesn't have decent support for something like SU, and it shows.

Actually, that is exactly what "fast user switching on Domains" is, a version of SU. WTF took them so long?

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[morgan_greywolf]

I mean, honestly - what does Vista do that XP doesn't? From a business standpoint, of course.

Better centralized management tools. Improved security model. Mostly, the changes affect infrastructure management as opposed to end-user experience. Oh, yeah, the big one: 64-bit support, which is not needed for typical office applications, but is an absolute must for companies moving their CAD workstations to Windows. CATIA V5, for example, fully supports the 64-bit Vista architecture right now.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[Frosty Piss]

Where I work, what the machine comes with is irrelevent, we reimage them all with our "standard image". I don't expect to have to deal with Vista until at least SP2.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[pete6677]

I sure hope its different than fast user switching currently found in XP, which doesn't work. I've never been able to do this without some sort of problem, usually requiring a reboot.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[rolfwind]

I have seen Ubuntu use 6 months updates to great advantage - every release just gets better and better because you don't expect too much out of a 6 month update, while MS promises the sky and doesn't release for years on end.

I think MS needs to at least consider a model to one of incremental updates (and I'm not talking security fixes, or SP packs here.) This could turn out to be an advantage to them (especially as I see Linux distros closing the gap with tremendous speed).

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you buy a new p/c, vista will be pre-installed, like it or not. If you keep your old xp p/c, you won't be supported, no more bug and vulnerability patches. Resistance is futile :-(

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[SuseLover]

Probably for the DRM features. That way they can encrypt and hide their proprietary information and email. They will claim it is to improve corporate security and prevent corporate secrets from getting out (as well as any shady activities being discovered). No more accidental leaks of Word files with revision history.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[RESPAWN]

The ability to push down many, many more settings via Active Directory in a Vista AD setting. For example, you can now set the power profile options via AD where as before you had to set them on each individual machines. (This was an issue at one office where I worked where the default power profile for the machines from the factory was for them to go into sleep mode after 10 minutes of inactivity, which also timed out their connections to the AS400's, causing us to have to log in to the AS400 and reset their connections.)

That's just one example, and the majority of the new settings are more security oriented I believe, but anything that allows us, the admins, to remotely exercise greater system control via AD policies is a very good thing.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[NineNine]

Name me one profitable, non-software producing company that updates their operating systems every 6 months.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[vertinox]

I mean, honestly - what does Vista do that XP doesn't? From a business standpoint, of course.

For one, you won't be able to play Halo 3 LAN games at the office without it!

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[Dan Ost]

If you consider Apple to be a hardware company...although didn't they just switch to
a 12-month release schedule?

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[DarthGregor]

Everyone working with Windows downloads Microsoft's patches every now and then. This is done today. If every now and then the update is a little bit bigger it's not a problem. The issue here is that the update should not be equalt to a re-install

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[uradu]

> but is an absolute must for companies moving their CAD workstations to Windows.

You're making it sound like 64-bit is REQUIRED for CAD use. Perhaps SOME products out there, but countless companies are doing their AutoCAD business on 32-bit quite happily, and have been doing it for well over a decade.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[NineNine]

You're right. I agree completely. But the thing is that while it's not perfect, MS actually offers some relatively long support periods during which a complete re-install isn't necessary. My point is that no business that isn't in the IT business can afford to re-install all of their operating systems on all of their machines every 6 months (like they'd have to with Ubuntu).

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[Anonymous Coward]

Better centralized management tools.

Such as...?

Improved security model.

That has yet to be proven... If you recall, 2000, XP, and XP SP2 all claimed the same...

Oh, yeah, the big one: 64-bit support

There is a XP 64-bit version already...

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[Hatta]

Why would I want that? The only place I can think this might be good is on shared computers

I work in a lab, we share computers.

Actually, that is exactly what "fast user switching on Domains" is, a version of SU. WTF took them so long?

You are 100% correct. There is absolutely no excuse for not having an equivalent to 'su'.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[PPH]

In any size company, you will care when the CEO sends everyone a memo written on his personal laptop with Vista and the latest version of Office and you can't read it.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[lessthanjakejohn]

You are wrong, with Ubuntu is built so you never have to reinstall, only update.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[Gerzel]

6 month updates for MS? So you want to shill out how much for your OS every 6 months?

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[raddan]

The point is not that we have to update every six months, but that Microsoft could make its own job easier by switching to a different release schedule. Instead of promising the world, and releasing one or two major operating system updates per decade, they could simply provide incremental updates to their codebase. I think Vista's frequent delays are a good indicator that management overreached when it came time to write up a feature set. Windows XP isn't perfect, but it was a lot better than previous revisions before that-- why they feel they have to do a complete rewrite every time is beyond me.

On our end, we wouldn't necessarily have to install those updates, but if they were compelling and bug-free improvements, there would definitely be a big incentive to do so.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[aaronl]

64 bit support - which breaks support for all of your legacy hardware by requiring signed drivers, and also is not needed for anyone's existing (and functioning) applications

Better centralized management tools - that you already bought for previous versions of Windows

Improved security - which is unproven at being better, and proven at being highly intrusive to users

These things *could* be useful, but they aren't anything people are going to rush out and spend hundreds to thousands on, per workstation, ever. We've all already worked around many of MS' deficiencies and made due with the old broken stuff. The desire to deal with new broken stuff isn't very strong.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[diersing]

If your security awareness program doesn't start with the CEO, then you've already made your bed.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[tjwhaynes]

My point is that no business that isn't in the IT business can afford to re-install all of their operating systems on all of their machines every 6 months (like they'd have to with Ubuntu).

Which would be valid if you were talking about Ubuntu 6.10 (Edgy Eft). Businesses interested in long term planning and stability would be using Ubuntu 6.06 LTS (Long Term Support) for precisely this reason - a five year guarantee of support matters in business. It will be interesting to see if that does get extended for some customers. My experience is that businesses will often pay their vendor to get support past the normal End-of-Life date for a product.

Cheers,
Toby Haynes

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[TheGavster]

I think you're confusing MS with Apple. MS service packs are free, it's the Mac ones you need to rebuy the OS for. Even for free, though, dealing with all the new anomalies a service pack generates every 6 months rather than every 2-3 years would be kind of a pain.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[MioTheGreat]

Better searching, MSI 4 (Has some nifty new features that businesses will like for managing computers), XPS might be useful, but I don't really know, IIS7 (only relevant to servers, using Longhorn server, and developers, but it's still cool.), Bitlocker, A slew of security stuff (IE runs w/ lower privledges, address randomization stuff to prevent buffer overflow attacks, etc.), vastly superior wireless support compared to XP (It's very very nice on my laptop.), RDP 6.0, domain fast user switching, a shitload of new group policy stuff...............

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[NineNine]

I agree. I'd prefer that as well. But then they'd have to switch to a subscription model which would go over like a dead, rotten cat with home users. They DO do that on a few of their products (I'm thinking of MS RMS right now), and it's actually cheaper and easier than the current model. In fact, that's part of the reason I'm moving from our current POS system to MS RMS.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[Z34107]

In any size company, you will care when the CEO sends everyone a memo written on his personal laptop with Vista and the latest version of Office and you can't read it.

Microsoft has free programs to read the Office file formats. It would cut into their profits if they didn't - who would buy the next version if nobody could read the new documents?.

The 2003 reader for Word is available here, for example. When Vista and Office 2007 are released, I'm sure they'll have a 2007 version, too.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[nine-times]

Better centralized management tools. Improved security model. Mostly, the changes affect infrastructure management as opposed to end-user experience

For some reason, when I read this I had a little flashback to the consultants who tried to sell me an upgrade from Exchange 2000 to Exchange 2003. They were spouting something about improved integration between different domains across an Active Directory forest. I was supporting a small company with 1 domain, 1 location.

For lots of people, these things are solutions looking for problems. I'd love an update of Windows that solved any of my day-to-day networking/support problems instead of generating new ones.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[bobcat7677]

So, how exactly is the 64bit support in Vista all that much of a "big improvement" when there is already a 64bit XP? Are the 64 bits that Vista have more shiney then the 64bits XP has? My observation is just the opposite...there more more XP 64bit drivers available for hardware right now then 64bit vista drivers by far. And no, you can't use 64bit XP drivers in Vista. And in my experience 64bit Internet Explorer is much more stable in XP/2003 then Vista. Where is all this mis-information coming from that you have to use Vista in order to support 64bit anyway?

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[Jaysyn]

I'm still using Windows 2000 & can see no reason I'd need to upgrade AutoCAD or Windows within the next few years.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[sasdrtx]

anything that allows us, the admins, to remotely exercise greater system control via AD policies is a very good thing. I hope by "very good" you mean "incredibly evil".

Among the other evils inflicted upon the universe by Microsoft are the "features" that allow power-crazed MCSE geekoids to get their jollies screwing around with and locking down my desktop settings.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[man_of_mr_e]

Actually, that is exactly what "fast user switching on Domains" is, a version of SU. WTF took them so long?

Uhh... no. su has been in windows for about 6 years. It's called "run as". You can do it either from the GUI or the command line.

fast user switching is more like virtual consoles. Windows has had this technology for a long time, but you've never been able to use it this way. Yes, it took them forever.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[jafac]

...what does Vista do that XP doesn't?

Eliminates the incredibly annoying SPACE in the user's home-directory path:

C:\Documents and Settings\jafac -> c:\users\jafac

At long last.

For me, this is worth the price of the upgrade.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[bommai]

I work for a Fortune 10 company with more than 300k employees worldwide and we just switched to XP last year. A lot of my colleagues are still running Windows 2000. We just switched from Outlook 2000 to Outlook 2003. We are still running Office 2000. We are generally 5 years behind what Microsoft releases.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[Fred_A]

Oh, yeah, the big one: 64-bit support, which is not needed for typical office applications, but is an absolute must for companies moving their CAD workstations to Windows. CATIA V5, for example, fully supports the 64-bit Vista architecture right now.

I have to admit I don't do CAD, but do CAD apps routinely use 4 gigs of data at once ??? I know they're large applications but I wouldn't have expected them to be quite that large.

Or is there another compelling reason to use a 64 bit system that I'm not aware of ?

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[PitaBred]

I think you meant "run as" is more equivalent to "sudo", not "su". su actually changes to a shell running as a different user.

Windows has NOT had this technology for a long time.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[PitaBred]

Apple gives out security fixes for free. Their "service packs" are typically large feature upgrades, whereas Microsoft service packs are just a convenient way of applying all their security patches at once.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Does it still have the incredibly patronizing "My Computer"?

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[sharkey]

What is Vista's business argument in the first place?

Microsoft FINALLY added phone-home product activation to their volume-licensed products. Now you dirty, dirty pirates that pay for Windows Vista pre-installed on your computer and then buy the upgrade to Windows Vista to install over Windows Vista can finally get what's coming to you.

Imagine, expecting the software you paid for twice to "just work"® without double-checking with Microsoft to make sure you're not a filthy stinking pirate today. Sheesh!

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[pipingguy]

The vast majority of CAD users are running AutoCAD and going to 64bit won't speed up the program much (if at all). A fresh OS install might make the software *seem* faster for awhile though.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[eraser.cpp]

Please review the massive article that is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_windo ws_vista before spreading any further ignorance. You'll find many features useful to businesses.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[Weaselmancer]

So asking a question is spreading ignorance? Nice troll, fanboy.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[pipingguy]

Most CAD users are on AutoCAD. 3D piping work (designing refineries, nuke plants, chem plants, etc.) in AutoCAD typically has to be broken-down into workable file sizes (say, less than 2MB, maybe up to 10MB). For other CAD applications I can imagine that models can be quite a bit larger, but those doing that type of work likely already have customized set-ups that cannot easily be upgraded due to fears that doing so will break something.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now it's Computer, Network (no My Network Places), Documents, Music, etc.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[man_of_mr_e]

Yes, run as can be similar to su, but if you "run as" cmd.exe, you get the same thing.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I have heard this all before.

When XP was released everyone on slashdot said, XP has no new features worth having except eye candy. XP is uselesss, blah, blah, blah, no one will ever upgrade to XP, blah, blah blah, Linux will triumph, blah, blah, blah. Lets get in to an argument over which Linux distro will triumph, blah, blah, blah.

Miracle upon miracle, for some reason everyone did upgrade to XP. Consumers actually did like the eye candy. Maybe this is because microsoft listens to its actual users and tries to provide software that they like.

They have done the same thing this time around, users were worried about security and microsoft is providing an operating system that addresses their security concerns.

Lets be clear here I love linux, I have run linux on my machine for any serious application since I did astronomy in university 10 years ago. But in a business context I always use Microsoft, not because its better but because I have reasonable confidence that it will just work. I have reasonable confidence that they will seek to address my needs as a software consumer, not pander to some intellectual masturbation about what makes an operating system better that really only matters to a small number of software geeks.

I charge my time out at 3000 dollars a day - if I have to spend a day compiling gentoo or 2 hours sorting out which software library I need to get open office to run properly on debian, or hell even spending 2 hours figuring out which distro is best, or worse spending 2 days convincing someone else that we should use a different distro to the one they like, I am going to spend the few hundred bucks and plumb for microsoft. It is the **only** sensible decision to make under those circumstances.

Damn, did I just write a defence of microsoft, I should have my temperature checked after all these years of using linux.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[drsmithy]

I have seen Ubuntu use 6 months updates to great advantage - every release just gets better and better because you don't expect too much out of a 6 month update, while MS promises the sky and doesn't release for years on end.

It's really easy to make frequent, significant improvements when those improvements need to be made.

Windows (and even OS X, now, which is why its cycle has slowed) has well and truly hit the point of "good enough". There aren't many compelling updates because there's just not that much stuff that needs significant improvement.

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[raddan]

You're right about home users-- a subscription model wouldn't be very popular. I suspect that most home users aren't even aware that they're paying for an OS. It "just comes with the computer."

But I bet this would be a big hit with business. We already buy site-licenses for our OSes. Management wants to go out of its way to make sure we're in compliance when it comes to software licenses, since site licenses are easier to deal with when you use imaging tools like Ghost. So we end up with two copies of XP Pro for each desktop, because the lease already includes a license. What a waste of money!

Anyway, for us, Vista doesn't offer anything we need. Users just need to do word processing, spreadsheets, presentations, email, and web. We've spent the money on XP, and XP does that job well on the hardware we have. In order to use Vista, we'd need to upgrade our hardware AND our OS-- and we'd still be doing the same things. No thanks!

Re:Why should businesses care anyways?

[Z34107]

Microsoft only a few years ago killed support for Windows 98. You have a long time to fret before your XP machine turns into a cinder block.

If it works, don't fix it.

[erbbysam]

If it works, don't fix it.

Re:If it works, don't fix it.

[Iphtashu Fitz]

If it works, don't fix it.

Yeah but that would dry up one of MS's many revenue streams!

Re:If it works, don't fix it.

[thisIsNotMyName]

But it doesn't work. As I understand it, the major changes in Vista are largely behind the scenes. They've enhanced security and optimized for modern processors and video cards. Given those changes alone, I'd rather be using Vista in 2 years than XP.

That said, the company I work for is not upgrading yet because of the lack of support for Visual Studio 2005 and SQL Server 2005.

Re:If it works, don't fix it.

[dapsychous]

If it works, don't fix it

If it works, fix it 'till it's broke.
There, fixed that type for you.

Re:If it works, don't fix it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah well that's just stupid.

With that conservative mentality we wouldn't have electricity, cars and the rest. We'd use torches, horses and bath in the river.

If it works, try to make it work even more.

Re:If it works, don't fix it.

[nine-times]

With that conservative mentality we wouldn't have electricity, cars and the rest

There are lots of places in the world where people don't have cars, electricity, and the rest anyway. This way we have global warming. Which is better?

Re:If it works, don't fix it.

[houghi]

That should be: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Re:If it works, don't fix it.

[Danse]

There are lots of places in the world where people don't have cars, electricity, and the rest anyway. This way we have global warming. Which is better?

I'm gonna have to go with the global warming on that one. I love me some electricity...

Re:If it works, don't fix it.

[eldepeche]

Yeah, Slashdot is for dicks, give me dysentery any day of the week.

Re:If it works, don't fix it.

[Phillup]

If it works, don't fix it.
 
Yeah but that would dry up one of MS's many revenue streams! How's that?

Which MS product doesn't need fixing?

Their entire business model is based on making people think that finally this stuff will work!

Re:If it works, don't fix it.

[WinDoze]

I've used Windows since, well, DOS 1.0.

I'm getting a Mac next time. Vista is unacceptable in the DRM department as well as the licensing department.

And I'm no long-haired FOSS type either. If anything you could have called me an MS fanboy up until now.

Time to get back to what computers are all about, and what they're all about is quite the opposite of limiting what you can do with them!

helloooooooo

[ILuvRamen]

well gee, don't mention the price at all. And not just the ridiculous like $1000 per computer in licensing between the two, but the extra overtime for IT staff in installing it and training people on it too. Oh yeah and we can't forget that no computer on earth can run them both at the same time at any reasonable speed. How stupid can Microsoft possibly be?

Re:helloooooooo

[PFI_Optix]

$1,000 is way over the top. Businesses aren't licensing Vista Ultimate. Oh, and we're talking about upgrades, not new purchases since those won't be much different than adding new licenses today. It will cost somewhere around $300-400 to upgrade.

You should see educational pricing. It's going to cost us about $100 per PC. For BOTH.

Re:helloooooooo

[BVis]

IT Staff? Overtime? What do those two things have to do with each other?

Wait, are you saying there's actually places that pay different amounts based on how many hours you work?

Re:helloooooooo

[cmat]

That's

Re:helloooooooo

[Shawn is an Asshole]

Schools, Libraries, and Nonprofits can get upgrades to XP for around $20/machine. Office 2003 licenses sometimes are around $10/machine. I'm sure Vista and Office 2007 will be similar.

Re:helloooooooo

[ILuvRamen]

yeah, it's called Wisconsin, move here. A quick summary as far as I know is that ONLY programmers are exempt from overtime laws and that's it.

Sounds like Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

"This thing is not going to be all that easy to roll out,"

the guy coudl be talking abtou switching to Linux by the sounds of it.

What are the common /. arguments again.

Umm, Well if you knew what you were doign it woudl be easy. It is just and initial cost and after trainign it will never occur again, the features make the expenditure worth it etc.....

Basically any major upgrade is a pain in the ass. that is life. Some of us just deal with it.

(we are not upgrading to Vista at my work. Why, because we just plain dont care....)

Re:Sounds like Linux

[PFI_Optix]

We're planning to upgrade in mid-2008 to use it as an excuse to force us off ancient buggy software. We'll just say it doesn't work in Vista and the developer quit supporting, so it's gone. Yay for us.

Re:Sounds like Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

We did the same with XP as we skipped the 2000 release for most of our users (we are state goverment). We had people go form NT4 to XP and finially got a chance to retire all the old buggy custom crap and redo it as web based apps, it makes everything easier to roll out.

Re:Sounds like Linux

[hallie_ball]

Why don't you convert all the apps to webbased, central update and thin clients, saves a lot of money....

Re:Sounds like Linux

[PFI_Optix]

Because the developers of the apps aren't willing to do that?

What, you think everyone develops their own apps and/or uses open source exculsively?

Re:Sounds like Linux

[Dan Ost]

When life gives you lemons...

Re:Sounds like Linux

[PFI_Optix]

You freeze them and throw them at your enemies.

Re:Sounds like Linux

[equex256]

I am gonna replace an NT4 workstation with an XP one, at work next week. And that is mostly because we just need a faster computer to run Photoshop, accounting, crm and stuff. If we could use NT4 with the new machine, we would probably do it.

What is this "Vista" you speak of ?

Hell

[El Lobo]

The system hasn't been out a mounth. There is an initial inertia to any change. Give it some time. Or yoyu thing any company using Linux have already updated to 2.6.19 ? Or should we say that companies 'BLAH' about it as well.

I work at a large university in sweden.In february we will upgrade about 3000 machines to Vista. It's a question aout budget and timing, between many reasons.

Re:Hell

[Whammy666]

2.6.19 is a kernal upgrade and has little, if any effect on user applications, file formats, or the GUI.

Re:Hell

[chill]

A kernel isn't an OS and you can't compare the two.

Vista RCs have been available to businesses for months. There is not a compelling reason to switch a business to Vista from XP. At least from 2000 to XP there were some noticeable advantages but right now switching to Vista looks like work just for the sake of work. Ugh.

As for "new machines coming with Vista", that is easy to take care of. Just install your MSDN copy of XP on top of it and save the license. This was done all the time when machines came with XP and companies weren't ready to upgrade from 2000.

Re:Hell

[kimvette]

I'm going to be upgrading one box to 2.6.19 ASAP thanks to improved bleeding-edge hardware support. If I didn't need the hardware support, I'd be thinking "blah"

Re:Hell

[the_greywolf]

I'm actually very wary of an upgrade to 2.6.19 (I still haven't tried any of the new Gentoo patch bundles for 2.6.18!) because of the trouble I had with 2.6.17.

I swear, all of the odd-numbered releases have sucked lately.

Re:Hell

[eldepeche]

What the fuck is a "kernal?"

Re:Hell

[thalassinos]

I work for a medium size bank in Europe. We use Windows 2000 in all our workstations (Win Server 2003 on servers) and have decided that we will not upgrade --- not even to XP.

When we choose a platform, we expect it to last for 6-10 years. It is very expensive to change the bedrock where your applications stand. For example OS/2 (v. 1.1 to v. 4) was used as our workstation OS for a decade (1991-2000). We got good utility out of it.

We currently plan during late 2007 - early 2008 to lunch a project to assess the situation and future of our corporate desktop software platform of choice (i.e. pick what to buy next).

In the mean time, we have absolutely no problems with Windows 2000. It does what we want and has served us well. As many people here on /. have pointed out, "if it aint' broken, don't fix it". And that's why we did not even upgrade to XP; Win 2000 works, why change it?

Also, please note that the vast majority of our PCs are fully capable of running Vista, they are Pentium 4s at 3+ Ghz with 1Gb RAM. They are speed demons under Win 2000; they will probably be rather average under Vista.

And if you think that running Windows 2000 puts us in the minority, think again; our main competitor still runs Windows NT on its workstations. And they are not the only ones.

And as an additional side note, besides Win 2000 workstations, we run the following additional systems:
- IBM mainframes running z/OS (DB2, CICS)
- IBM System p (RS/6000) running AIX (SAP, data mining, accounting and web banking)
- IBM System i5 (AS/400) running OS/400 (DB2, transaction processing)

During the last 3 years we have transferred/converted our asset finance applications out of the mainframe and our credit cards system out of the AS/400 into x86 servers running Linux (Red Hat).

So, when 2008 comes and we start looking for our future desktop OS, Vista will not be the only game in town.

Who will exercise downgrade rights?

[davidwr]

How many companies will buy PCs with Vista Business EOM pre-installed, or buy the Vista Business OEM package, then exercise downgrade rights and put XP on them?

How many volume license owners will pay for a Vista license but install XP now and upgrade later, on THEIR timetable?

I bet quite a few.

Re:Who will exercise downgrade rights?

[SatanicPuppy]

Hell, I work for a company that just stopped downgrading boxes to Windows 2000 2 years ago. I don't see Vista adoption for another 3 years at a minimum, except for a few executives here and there.

Too much headache, too high a hardware requirement, too low a ROI.

Re:Who will exercise downgrade rights?

[jimicus]

How many companies will buy PCs with Vista Business EOM pre-installed, or buy the Vista Business OEM package, then exercise downgrade rights and put XP on them?

Speaking as an IT manager, in my case: as soon as I can't get Windows XP preinstalled on the hardware I want.

How many volume license owners will pay for a Vista license but install XP now and upgrade later, on THEIR timetable?

Funny you say that, I've just gone out and bought a corporate volume license for XP for exactly that purpose - previously, we didn't bother because it's a small company that's been around for rather less time than Windows XP and every PC had it preinstalled. I can see it being very difficult to buy a PC without Vista in 12-18 months time.

SURPRISE!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a surprise, why?

The major flaw with the MSFT model is its insistance for backwards compatibility. They have no direction and nobody is at the helm. It's like a ship lost at sea that sometimes makes it into a random port to dump some crap off.

Disappointment?

[Abcd1234]

Those who expected the initial Vista release to generate a wave of hype will be sorely disappointed.

So, what, all two of them?

Re:Disappointment?

[erbbysam]

So, what, all two of them? The two marketing executives @ Microsoft who got there position for expecting nothing short of a "wave of hype"?

Re:Disappointment?

[BrokenBeta]

Yes, and they're both BLAH. You heard me, BLAH. It's that serious.

Re:Disappointment?

[n3tcat]

Yeah. And one of them is quitting soon (with vague rumors of running for president), while the other will just throw his chair at the unimpressed.

Yeah right...

[zappepcs]

Even if I liked MS products, and I'm not saying they suck, I still wouldn't entertain the thought of an upgrade project at this time of year. With support being taxed as it is due to holidays, and training not able to fully support an enterprise wide roll-out, it is just stupid to think companies will gleefully jump on the Vista bandwagon and roll out the shiny new MS products.

People debate the cost of rolling out OSS products for these very reasons, and MS lackeys have touted how a MS upgrade costs less in support and training for the upgrade. The simple truth: The upgrade roll-out costs are near the same when there are feature and function changes. Companies also have to think of the COST of new licenses on top of generic roll-out problems and costs. Its just not a good time of year for such activity. I think it was a poor choice of times to launch?

Re:Yeah right...

[binner1]

Didn't they have to have the product available before the end of 2006 to meet contractual obligations with some companies that signed up for a 'get new ms stuff cheap' program a few years back? I don't recall the name of the program, but basically it means that 'subscribers' would get severely discounted prices on future products if they pay a sum up front.

I could be wrong. This is from memory and I haven't googled for anything either.

-Ben

Re:Yeah right...

[cmorgan47]

you made me think here....not the comment just one word of it. and a different meaning.

taxed.
if you upgrade now, you get to expense it this year.

Slashdot 'Blah'...

[LeedsSideStreets]

About Articles About People Being 'Blah' About Vista



...not that I blame anybody for posting the articles. It is kind of an unprecedented wave of underwhelmingness.

Only gamers will care about Vista

[Anonymous Coward]

Since I have heard no news about DirectX10 on XP, I'm assuming that it will be Vista only.

Re:Only gamers will care about Vista

[Whammy666]

Vista may not be an asset to gamers. DX10 doesn't really add any new features to the graphics capability of a system since that is largely dependent on hardware. Developers may like the newer DX10 interface, but there are severe backward compatibility issues for users. Any game which depends on DX10 will not run on XP or W2K platforms. I can't see developers embracing DX10/Vista for fear of excluding a large portion of the gaming market.

Re:Only gamers will care about Vista

[oliverthered]

DX10 does away with the fixed function pipeline so I expect many developers, especailly novice ones are going to hate it because they will have to write everything using shaders.

Re:Only gamers will care about Vista

[werewolf1031]

I can't see developers embracing DX10/Vista for fear of excluding a large portion of the gaming market.

Either your wishful thinking has overridden your physical senses, or you're living under a rock (or simply not a gamer and thus not paying attention to gaming-related news). Halo 3 will be a DirectX 10 title, thus requiring Vista. The strategy worked for XBox sales as a "launch title", it'll work for Vista sales; at least, that's Microsoft's reasoning. Since most "hardcore" gamers already have pretty beefy machines, the only added investment to play Halo 3 will be for Vista. The pessimist in me thinks this strategy will, unfortunately, help boost adoption of Vista among the gaming crowd once Halo 3 is released. There are several other DirectX 10-only games currently in development by other studios as well (I read about these in print mags, you can Google for 'em at your leisure).

DX10 doesn't really add any new features to the graphics capability of a system since that is largely dependent on hardware.

You may be right, as some DX9 titles still boast some impressive visual quality right now, but the point is moot. Marketing forces will prevail. It is of course inevitable that the time will come, perhaps in a year or two, when all new games are based on DirectX 10 (or higher).

Vista may not be an asset to gamers.

No, it will eventually be a requirement, whether we like it or not.

Re:Only gamers will care about Vista

[Danse]

Since most "hardcore" gamers already have pretty beefy machines, the only added investment to play Halo 3 will be for Vista.

First of all, when it comes to the PC, "hardcore gamers" make up about 1% of PC gamers. Yeah, those are the guys that have the $4000 systems with dual $600 video cards. The only DX10 vid cards out right now are priced at $450 and $600. So until those come way down in price, there's going to be a VERY limited number of PC gamers with DX10-capable systems.

Marketing forces will prevail. It is of course inevitable that the time will come, perhaps in a year or two, when all new games are based on DirectX 10 (or higher).

It's possible that in a couple years we'll see Vista become the mainstream. I don't like it, but that's pretty likely to happen. In the meantime, I suspect we'll see a lot of games released that will play on either DX9 or DX10. I suspect that's going to require a fairly significant increase in the amount of development work, but that's the way it goes. Otherwise they'll be cutting out a huge portion of their potential market.

I'm avoiding Vista for a variety of reasons. I'm part of another very small fraction of the PC community. I like to upgrade my box fairly often. According to the Vista EULA, it will only allow me to transfer the license to a new system once. What constitutes a new system is never really defined, and Microsoft won't say for sure either. They just say that they have sophisticated algorithms that will determine when a system has changed enough to be considered a new system. I suspect that swapping out my motherboard and vid card, as I'm about to do tomorrow, would be sufficient to make it a new system. So, if I upgrade more than once, Microsoft wants to make me buy a new copy of Vista. Obviously, I'd much rather just shove the EULA up Steve B's ass (not personally, but I'd pay to watch). So, for that reason, along with DRM issues, and the fact that I don't have DX10 hardware anyway, I simply won't be buying Vista anytime soon. Maybe they'll come up with a crack for it eventually so I can shut off all the DRM and phone-home crap and have a little privacy.

Re:Only gamers will care about Vista

[crabpeople]

They will backport dx10 to xp 2k. They HAVE to. Thats where the lions share of the market is and there is no way they would screw every single game company out there. Vista wont have any sort of good installed numbers for at least 3 years.

Re:Only gamers will care about Vista

[ShinySteelRobot]

Any game which depends on DX10 will not run on XP or W2K platforms. I can't see developers embracing DX10/Vista for fear of excluding a large portion of the gaming market.

Mod parent down; the post is spreading disinformation.

Most major games released during the next couple of years will have both DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 code paths. If running on anything less than Vista, the games will automatically select the DX9 code path. The graphics may not look as fancy, but you'll be able to play them on XP and Vista.

Re:Only gamers will care about Vista

[Whammy666]

Either your wishful thinking has overridden your physical senses, or you're living under a rock (or simply not a gamer and thus not paying attention to gaming-related news). Halo 3 will be a DirectX 10 title, thus requiring Vista. Let me just say that -consumers- dictate market forces, not microsoft or any other vendor. Any company that thinks it can issue edicts to its customers is probably setting itself up for failure. As a consumer, I don't care that Halo3 or any other game is scheduled to be only available on Vista. Put simply, I'm not going to spend a bucket load of $$$ to upgrade my system, so I can spend more $$$ to install an OS I don't want, just so I can spend $60 on a rehashed game sequel. Forget that idea.

Speaking as a long time gamer (I still have a copy Commander Keen floating around) I can tell you that I'm not going to go to Vista. I also have talked to other gamers and computer users around my office and I have yet to find anyone interested in upgrading. DX10 might claim to have some marginally better graphics capabilities but I actually doubt this since as mentioned before, you ultimately run into the hardware limitions no matter which API you use. Both OpenGL and DX9 already support the power of programmable shaders thru CGI and HLSL, so what does DX10 bring to the table that's going to beat that? Probably nothing of consequence to the user.

Personally, I'm waiting for OpenGL 3.0 to come out.

Re:Only gamers will care about Vista

[Whammy666]

If game is written to support -both- DX9 and DX10, then it is not dependent on DX10 since it supports the older API. What I said is still very much correct: If a game is dependent on DX10 (ei. it doesn't support DX9 or OGL), then it's strictly a Vista only game with a limited audience.

Re:Only gamers will care about Vista

[Squozen]

They changed that part of the licence a few weeks ago actually. It's never been that difficult to move XP to a new system in any case, it only required a call to Microsoft. Annoying, but a 5-minute operation.

Re:Only gamers will care about Vista

[obeythefist]

Let me just say that -consumers- dictate market forces, not microsoft or any other vendor.

Hi, I can see you've finished first year economics, including the good ol' free market economy! Great!

Let's move on to second year where we experience market conditions that allow companies like Apple to remain in business by selling non-competitive products at higher margins than free market conditions would allow by making them look bright and shiny encased in white plastics. Because people will buy something because it says "Apple" on it.

Microsoft works in a market which is very similar to a textbook condition known as a Monopoly (it's not exactly a monopoly but there's no such thing as a pure free market or a pure monopoly or any other pure market). What happens in a Monopoly market is the product demand is pretty inelastic (everyone needs computers), and the competition is heavily stifled or controlled (In this case through software patents and general obfuscation of the software product code). Now you might say Linux can compete but it really can't, even though the base functionality is really the same, Linux and Windows are both operating systems right? But only Windows will run Halo 3 and whatever other next gen games, and this is all about gaming. So, Microsoft is wholly in charge of determining supply, and therefore does control the market we're interested in.

Now, as you've identified yourself as a gamer, it's interesting that you've chosen a game to represent your status as a respectable cutting edge up to date in with the latest gamer that has *nothing* to do with over 99.99% of actual market-relevant gamers in the world. (Aside: Commander Keen was a great game for its time, but you need to move with the times, it's 2006). We can put aside any "they don't make them like they used to, I've seen it all before" discussions for another time. The gaming industry is not static, it moves. DX10 enables graphics functionality and rendering speeds like no other framework ever provided. It also more tightly controls hardware specifications which will flatten out disparity in performance, stability, and everything else that we currently experience in heterogenous hardware environments.

But if you're not 100% sure, google for screenshots of a game (a DX10 game) called Crysis, and tell me with a straight face that you believe that Commander Keen has the same potential to create visually realistic imagery and wholly immersive cinematic gameplay scenarios.

Re:Only gamers will care about Vista

[bcmm]

I agree that they will have to, because it seems likely that if they don't, Linux will have DX10 (through Cedega or something similar) before XP.

No reason to switch

[insanemime]

Right now companies are comfortable with XP. Why should they look at upgrading hundreds of machines to an OS that needs another upgrade to run smoothly? When is Microsoft going to realize that performance & security > Eye Candy? I think they are too worried about out cooling Apple and that is not their strong suite. Look at the zune...the commercials should have the tag line "Look, we're cool too"

Incompatibity to force upgrades strikes again

[Whammy666]

Yet again M$ is releasing another upgrade with incompatible file formats to earlier versions of office tools with the expectations that millions of users will be forced to pay yet another M$ tax to exchange documents with fellow business associates. I'm so glad we've converted over to OpenOffice.

I can see no good reason to migrate to Vista, and the compatibility and re-training issues are strong reasons not to. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Re:Incompatibity to force upgrades strikes again

[Dan Ost]

How big is your company and how hard was it to (a) sell management on the idea of openoffice
and (b) actually convert to openoffice?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Re:Incompatibity to force upgrades strikes again

[doktor-hladnjak]

Yet again M$ is releasing another upgrade with incompatible file formats to earlier versions of office tools with the expectations that millions of users will be forced to pay yet another M$ tax to exchange documents with fellow business associates.

Except that this isn't the case. Microsoft is providing a free add-in for older versions that will allow them to read and write the new XML formats. Office 2003 (maybe others?) is smart enough to recognize the new formats and phone home to Microsoft to download the relevant add-in.

Re:Incompatibity to force upgrades strikes again

[Whammy666]

Our company is not very big (about 20 people) so there wasn't a lot of inertia to make the change. Plus selling it to management wasn't an issue. I am management.

What prompted the change was that our developers use Linux systems for application development. (We live by the motto that if it's mission critical, don't use Windows.) OpenOffice allows our Linux and Windows users to exchange documents without problems. Plus OpenOffice can import Word documents so changing over didn't create any special problems beyond learning the OpenOffice GUI. And finally, OpenOffice is actually a pretty capable application. It's perfectly suited for doing any business document that we'll ever write.

We don't use spreadsheets so I don't know about the compatibility there.

I've seen this article before?

[needacoolnickname]

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/30/181924 2

Not all companies are 'blah'

[the_arrow]

I'm currently working as a consultant at a big multinational telecommunications company, and from what I hear they are planning to move everyone over to Vista as soon as they can. Everyone I talked to about this just shakes their head and sighs.

Access 97

[sckeener]

When Chevron makes the switch to Vista, I'm just waiting for my users to call and want Access 97 installed, so they can get to that critical 1999 database!

Re:Access 97

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you thinking of the tank (as in service station gasoline tanks) integrity project. A friend wrote that in Access 97. Exceptionally professional job and he was just a maintenance mechanic.

Re:Access 97

[sckeener]

Are you thinking of the tank (as in service station gasoline tanks) integrity project. A friend wrote that in Access 97. Exceptionally professional job and he was just a maintenance mechanic.

nah, I support Chevron's legal dept and have for the last 7 years as a contractor. Admittedly the law function ends up touching all the other OPCOs...so it might be that DB.

I was just trying to make a point that too much old data never is migrated to newer formats and my users just expect to be able to access it.

Re:Access 97

[Anonymous Coward]

that is so funny. I used to work for Chevron in the legal department as a contractor about 8 or 9 years ago building Access 97 databases

Education sector not considering it either...

[Omicron32]

I've posted this comment on another story recently, but it's just as relevent to this one.

I work in a school, and as such we have an MS Schools License Agreement, which entitles us to all the latest Microsoft software for a reletively cheap price (I think £30ish a workstation).

We're expecting delivery of our Office 2007 and Vista discs in either the December or January licensing packs. While we may test them around the office, a network-wide deployment (about 350 machines total) of Vista won't even be considered till after SP1 is released. Not to mention all the poorly-written educational software that will need compatability testing on the new OS. Due to the training requirements of Office 2007 I probably can't see that being rolled out till 2008 at the earliest either - especially with the admin staff, since a lot of their applications tie directly into Office and they use it all day, ever day. The training requirements for that alone would cause so many headaches for us to support.

Many people I know who work at other schools in our area aren't even considering an upgrade yet or in the near future. XP works just fine for now and the forseeable future. My school is lucky in that we have a large IT budget and have mostly up-to-date PCs (enough for what they do on them anyway), other schools in my area are still running 333MHz/128MB RAM machines - not exactly the powerhouse needed to run Vista at a reasonable level.

I posted the original comment here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=209148&cid=170 53950

Microsoft does not really care that much!

[bogaboga]

Microsoft does not really care that much because it knows that sooner or later companies will bite. This was the same story when Windows XP was released.

For Microsoft, it will be a matter of threatening to stop support for older programs or even make maintaining them more expensive.

The other strategy is to stop shipping Windows XP to OEMs while providing Vista alone. That act alone will do the trick.

So I say to Microsoft...."Do not worry, these ambivalent companies will soon bite whether they like it or not."

Re:Microsoft does not really care that much!

[Knara]

Any company with a respectable desktop computer base already has access to XP install media and license agreements with MS which allow for the use of Windows 2k/xp for many years to come. It's only the very smallest companies that rely on the OEM installed software for their day-to-day use, so far as I can tell.

don't fix it if it's not broke

[matt328]

Currently the company I work for (non-profit,
Sure there's new document formats and a new look, but what legitimate reason is there for my users needing that? Management is always telling me, well so-and-so over at X company has the exchange 2k7 beta, why don't we, blah blah. They never can seem to find an answer though when I ask what's lacking about X company's current software.

Re:don't fix it if it's not broke

[kimvette]

It's called "Keeping up with the Joneses"

CxOs who get to spend other people's money love to get into their dick-waving contest saying "mine's bigger/better/faster" when in reality they're suckers who overspent and then have to lay people off at the end of a quarter in order to rescue their overly-generous bonus packages.

Would anyone expecgt differently?

[pcgamez]

I seriously doubt that anyone here is surprised. There is simply almost no reason to upgrade to a newer OS.

1) The OS is in its infancy, meaning that there are large numbers of bugs.

2) It is just before a major holiday break, large projects will not be starting until after the break.

3) There is no feature that requires an upgrade.

4) The training of the tech staff is probably just getting started.

Most companies will be looking at switching when their next major desktop purchase goes through (generally once per year). If that is anywhere in the next few months, they will probably just roll out with XP and wait until the next hardware cycle to seriously consider it.

I wonder if some compines will move away from MS

[Iphtashu Fitz]

Microsoft has always claimed that the cost of a company running Windows is less than the costs involved in running F/OSS. I wonder if the pain that will undoubtedly be incurred by migrating from Windows 9x/NT/XP to Vista will convince some that it's time to give up entirely on MS products. If I were a CTO and was faced with the cost of upgrading numerous machines to Vista and retraining users on new versions of Office & Windows, I might seriously consider using those same costs to invest in migrating to a platform based on OpenOffice and a decent linux distro. Granted many larger companies most likely wouldn't consider this but I seriously wonder if more and more smaller companies might feel that this is a good reason to consider moving away from MS products. There are more and more stories out there about smaller companies dropping MS products because of the licensing costs, and with more non-US governments, etc. stating their plans to move to entirely F/OSS products it seems like the pain that MS is creating might be the tipping point for some.

Older Users

[ndansmith]

I personally think the Office 2007 UI is an improvement over Office 2003. However, I am a network admin at a church. Most of my users are people over the age of forty and below average with respect to computer skills even in that age group. I have worked hard over the past years to cram, shove, and pound the knowledge to operate Office 2003 into their minds. The prospect of having to start from scratch is enough to make a grown man cry.

Companies haven't upgraded from Windows 2000 yet

[rickkas7]

According to AssetMetrix, as of June 2005 half of all corporate PCs were still running Windows 2000. Considering XP was released in October 2001, I don't find it at all surprising that businesses haven't jumped on installing Vista yet.

Though with Windows 2000 in extended support phase since June of this year, there are probably a number of larger corporations that skipped Windows XP and plan to go from 2000 to Vista.

DirectX is already a pain to work with

[nullsmind]

I develop and DirectX and all I get for support is "we don't support that anymore," or they're completely redoing an API while giving some Sony-like ignorance saying "companies don't use it that much." I do. What I'm saying is DirectDraw was replaced with Direct3D which is kinda minor, but support for DirectDraw to run in the future for backward compatability is quite void or being built over software emulation. DirectSound is getting replaced with XACT while 3d hardware acceleration for DirectSound is completely gone from Vista! What happened to the #1 gaming OS? DirectMusic is on the state of change but still there. DirectShow was moved to the Windows platform SDK. DirectInput was dropped from XNA for PC gaming expecting the gamer to have a 360 controller. DirectPlay was dropped earlier but has no equivelant to take over. What I am learning is what I am unlearning. The same thing goes on with Windows Vista now too. I am just really considering OpenGL for now on because I learned to respect consistancy.

Re:DirectX is already a pain to work with

[radarsat1]

I completely agree. Hell, even when they decided to change the header file from "d3d.h" to "d3d9.h", it completely screwed up the source code I was supporting, I had to add #ifdef flags and inform the user how to deal with them depending on which version of DX they wanted to use.

They go and completely change API stuff all the time without any regard to how it affects their customers. The change from DX9 to DX10 is the most drastic ever, and it will be completely incompatible. Aaaaagh... *shakes head in frustration*

I understand that they implemented a new driver model and all the arguments, but fuck, do they not understand the idea of an API?? To abstract the details so we don't have to worry about changes to the back-end implementation.. and the whole point of all the complexities of COM was supposed to be so we wouldn't ever have to deal with these issues. It's enough to drive a guy crazy!

Re:DirectX is already a pain to work with

[Cassini2]

Welcome to Microsoft. Microsoft can't stop itself from creating programming dead ends. Below is history by product. Can anyone name a few products or API's that I missed?

Windows:
Windows 2.0 to Windows 3.0: triggered rewrites.
Windows 3.1 to Windows/95: triggered rewrites.
Even Windows/NT 3.1 to Windows/95 even triggered rewrites.

Basic:
QuickBasic 4.x to VisualBasic 1.0: triggered rewrites
VisualBasic 3.0 (16-bit) to VisualBasic 4.0 (32-bit): triggered rewrites.
VisualBasic 5/6/7 to VisualBasic .NET: triggered rewrites.

C++:
Microsoft C 6.0 to Visual C++ 1.0: triggered rewrites.
Visual C++ 1.x to Visual C++ 2.0 (32-bit): triggered rewrites.
Visual C++ 2005: marked almost the entire Standard C library as deprecated.

Canceled Languages:
VisualJ++ (Java), QuickPascal, Fortran, ...

why?

[blindd0t]

That's simple - the only businesses that have access to it now include MSDN subscribers and members of their partner program. This means it primarily affects developers who are the ones typically interesting in early adoption; however, they really don't support much of their own development tools right now. They won't support Visual Studio 2005 until SP1 is released first quarter next year, they won't support Visual Studio 2003, 2002, or 6 at all (though they do support Visual Basic 6.0 and Visual FoxPro 9.0). You can read up on this yourself, of course.

Re:I wonder if some compines will move away from M

[NineNine]

No way. Only big companies can afford to move to OSS, unless one of the principals happens to be a geek. My small company (10 people) in no way, shape, or form could afford to move to OSS. It would instantly bankrupt us. No, that's not an exaggeration, and yes, we're quite profitable and debt free. But we can't afford to hire a staff of programmers to re-write our current applications (there are no OSS equivalents), and train the current IT staff (me, the owner) a whole new way of doing things.

That being said, I have no reason to use Vista. We're still using W2K and it's working just fine. But, if I had to buy Vista for some reason, I would do it with a smile, when I think of what the alternative is.

Windows XP is at end of support life time..

[Anonymous Coward]

in 2 years after Vista release

http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3223

This is great news for XP owners, after this 2 year period is ended they WILL release a hotfix / patch to remove the ACTIVATION requirement for XP.

They have stated this here.. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302878

"Does Microsoft use activation to require me to upgrade? Will Microsoft ever stop issuing activation codes for one or more of the products that require activation?

No. Microsoft does not use activation as a tool to require people to upgrade. Activation is only an anti-piracy tool.

Microsoft will also support the activation of Windows XP and will likely provide an update that turns off activation at the end of the product's life cycle so that users would no longer have to activate the product. "

ENJOY VISTA by waiting for the XP activation REMOVAL patch in 2 years!!!

There is not a compelling case to upgrade

[bogie]

I've been using RTM since it came out via MSDN and I just don't see the need to upgrade from XP to Vista except for a few limited cases.

Overall:

Pluses -
Bitlocker might be a great solution to keep stolen laptops from causing so much damage.
Built in apps for managing photos and your calendar are nice to have.
Built in Search works well.
Backup and Restore are nice if you can afford the "right" version of Vista.
Windows Meeting space is neat.
Windows Update now just a small app that runs locally.
Firewall does both ways and is much improved.

Cons -
If you own a CRT Vista may not be for you. Fonts are designed specifically for LCD only use. Yuck!
Aero adds literally nothing to the user experience, waste of cpu and gpu cycles.
Slower gaming than XP until DX10 cards and games become common a while from now.
They changed the file system layout for no reason, ie no more "My Documents".
High system requirements with little payoff.
You need 64bit to truly take adavantage of the new security measures.
New unproven network stack may be a huge mistake.
UAC , Everyone is just going to click "Allow" anyway so why bother?
Current Free 3rd party and MS apps for XP duplicate what Vista is offering. With Picasa, Google Desktop Search, WMP11, Windows Defender, etc all available why do we need Vista?

Overall this is not a necessary upgrade for the vast majority of XP users. A few years from now when developers really start taking advantage of the "under the hood stuff" you may have something. But until then home users should avoid upgrading unless there is a specific feature you feel to be must-have. I usually upgrade to every MS release when it comes out(well except for ME) but I find having to force myself to even boot into Vista.

Re:There is not a compelling case to upgrade

[WuphonsReach]

Bitlocker might be a great solution to keep stolen laptops from causing so much damage.

Only if you buy the "right" version of Vista (i.e. "Ultimate"). Which comes with other things that business really aren't interested in.

Re:There is not a compelling case to upgrade

[bmajik]

I've been using it for the last 6 months. Both my home machines now run it, as well as 2 of my 3 work machines.

If i could think of one feature all by itself that makes upgrading Vista worthwhile on my home machines it is this one:

Per-Application Volume Control

Sounds ridiculous, right? in XP, turning up the volume in media player to hear that low-volume encoded movie got really irritating just about the time outlook told you that you got new mail, or a new IM contact signed in. The deafening "DING!@#$" was not appreciated.

The Vista volume applet gives you a separate slider (and MUTE!) for each application using the sound device.

The second thing I love:

Shell File operations are Less Dumb.

Every shell file oepration you might do - extracting files from a zip file, copying, moving, etc, now has its own separate window with minimize and close controls, and they show up on the task bar in explorer. Additionally, they don't block the UI painting of any other explorer windows. Essentially, the shell file management experience has become much less awful.

The Third Thing I Love:

Massive improvements to the VM system

VM system optimized for specific scenarios. Hibernate/resume are much faster than XP. The "lunch" scenario in vista is much better. The lunch scenario, breifly, is the phenomena where you walk away from an XP machine for 1 hour and then sit back down at it and it takes 10-45s for outlook to become usable. During this time there is massive disk thrashing as all of the pageouts get paged back in. Vista has gotten much smarter about paging and the laptop experience with Vista crushes Xp. Hibernate/resume is much improved, and sleep/wake on my antiquated Dell D600 (Vista Experience Index: 1.0) is at least as fast as OSX sleep/wake on my wifes ibook - by the time the lid is at the right viewing angle, the machine is ready.

Fourth Thing:

Media Center

Media Center in Vista isn't its own hard-to-get SKU, its included in the higher end home SKUs. Also, it supports ATSC tuners natively. It is easier to get fansubbed content working properly under MCE than it was on MCE2005 (not sure why, it just seems to be. Install CCCP and set Haali to auto-load VSFilter, and you are done). the music management stuff in MCE (and WMP11) are nicer than MCE05

Fifth Thing:

Asian Language Fonts

Ok, this isn't a big deal, but I appreciate it. Vista has Japanese and other east asian fonts ready to go out of the box. This means that when you get this weeks hottest J-Pop MP3s media player and friends don't draw a zillion empty box glphys - you get beautiful anti-aliased Kanji/kana. On XP installing the east asian fonts required access to the XP Cds and a reboot :)

Sixth Thing

Parental Controls

This isn't something I need to use currently, but I've looked at it a bit and it seems like a pretty good idea. the User Accounts stuff in vista has been redone so taht in non-domain joined machines, its more like "Family And Accounts Center". The idea is that everyone in your house gets a non-admin account, and on any non-admin account, the admin user can setup different parental type controls, including logging of IM conversations, web browsing history, etc etc. Obviously there are probably ways to circumvent this, but the distance between "zero" and what Vista gets you is pretty tremendous, and if technology companies don't start doing stuff to make this easy and effective for normal people, Legislators will, and it will be Bad(tm). Plus, it continues to push Windows to a multi-user, not-everyone-is-admin type model.

7th Thing

network locations

When you join a new network (be it wireless, wired, VPN, or whatever), you can specify what type of network it is (home, work, public place) and a bunch of settings (like filesharing, firewall permissiveness, etc) are set for you. Vista remembers networks you've been to befo

Re:There is not a compelling case to upgrade

[BrookHarty]

UAC , Everyone is just going to click "Allow" anyway so why bother?

First piece of shareware will just click allow for you. ;)

Re:There is not a compelling case to upgrade

[jimicus]

Bitlocker might be a great solution to keep stolen laptops from causing so much damage.

Oh, right, you mean like FileVault on MacOS X.

Built in apps for managing photos and your calendar are nice to have.

Gotcha. A bit like iPhoto and iCal, yes?

Built in Search works well.

Oh, so they've licensed Spotlight?

Backup and Restore are nice if you can afford the "right" version of Vista.

Funny you say that, if I paid for the .mac subscription I'd have a program called Backup, which I believe is at version 3.

Windows Meeting space is neat.

Can't say I've ever used iChat myself.

Re:There is not a compelling case to upgrade

[PitaBred]

Wow. Everything that you're espousing is currently on my Linux box except for the per-application sound management. Way to be behind the curve, Microsoft.

Re:There is not a compelling case to upgrade

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is asserting that Vista is revolutionary in terms of advances. All the GP was asserting is that there are definitely some nontrivial improvements in Vista that make it compelling to upgrade from a previous Windows OS. Whether Linux/Mac OSX/other-OS already have these features is not the point.

Yawn

[Mr_Silver]

Don't gforget that:

• Companies were "blah" about Windows XP
• Companies were "blah" about Office 2003
• Companies were "blah" about Windows 2000
• Companies were "blah" about Office 2002
• Companies were "blah" about Office 2000

Companies are blah about replacements to pretty much anything that already works and already does the job well enough. Eventually they'll shift, but only when all their hardware has broken down and been replaced by stuff that can run it, the current operating system of choice is no longer supported and they have major applications that won't run in that aforementioned operating system.

This is hardly new, they have been working this way for years and I fully expect them to be "blah" about the next version of Office and Windows as well.

Slashdot. News for nerds, stuff that is blindingly obvious.

Re:Yawn

[Joe The Dragon]

Yes companies did wait to go form 2000 to xp and some may have need to add ram to a few systems to make it work.
But this time that may need to add a lot ram, faster cpu, better video card, and a Bigger HD.
so that will slow it down even more.

When theres nothing really extraordineary...

[Knutsi]

...in Visat/office 2007 that will give companies a great benefit from upgrading, why bother? I mean, it's all new, shiney and has allot of neat features, but it won't make a massive difference for most companies.

My workplace will get Office 2007 for our new SharePoint portal however, but Vista does not appear to make sense to us as far as I hear. I'm really scared we'll have problems with the new .docx files tho'.

Companies aren't going to rush out to install this

[jocknerd]

They'll go to Vista when their PC's on their PC replacement program with Dell, ship with Vista. And they'll switch to Office 2007 when their Enterprise license ends for Office 2003. Its that simple.

Hey, my company is switching!!

[kace]

... My company recently announced that we're making the switch -- from win2000 to WindowsXP !! Woohoo. I'll probably have retired before we see Vista.

I think M$ is in trouble. Their business model seems to require churning perfectly good SW. Businesses have caught on. If it aint' broke .... (Or, if it ain't more broke than the upgrade.)

vista bsod screen

[Anonymous Coward]

I know why I'm upgrading immediately... have you seen the Vista Blue Screen of Death? A giant leap forward if you ask me.

This is for rich people

[protomala]

I don't know about Unidet States, but here in Brazil PC consume is showing a boom as it has never seen before. Thanks to the "PC para todos" (PC for all) program that reduces taxes for some -very low and cheap- systems.

Basically people are buying cheap and small PCs with bank credit (you can pay in 12 times) and it comes with linux. Unhappilly more than 72% of those PCs end up with running windows, but here is the thing, those PCs can barely run windows XP (most of them just have 128 MB of ram), how can they hope to run windows? And the companies selling those PCs are mostly brazilian, big companies as HP and Dell just don't get it, they want to sell expensive hardware for a small group. This is just like the wall mart selling cheap PCs US.

Yes, for people with lots of money that can afford a PC with 1 GB of ram this is no problem, but the reality check is that in Brazil, Vista will need some years to take off for real people (not gamers, etc). So, why shold people care about it, really?

Enterprises. Don't. Care.

[hobo sapiens]

That's right, large corporations do not care. Name a large corporation that wants to be on the bleeding edge. If it ain't broke, then don't fix it. And if there's one thing worse than fixing the unbroke, it's "upgrading" from fixed to broken, as Vista will surely be in at least some fashion.

XP is fairly stable and so what incentive do corporations have for upgrading? Better security? That's laughable, as this is a 1st gen of a new OS from Microsoft we're talking about. More eye candy? Yeah, now *that's* a top priority. If there are no real compelling reasons for the average home user to upgrade, then there are especially no reasons for a company to do so.

Microsoft will have to learn from Open source

[damarusama]

Who needs to reinvent the wheel? Ok maybe from DOS to Ms-Windows, ok window 98 to windows xp, but why more, and why is the os still bonded to the GUI ? Nobody is learning anything from open source ? Haaa microsoft... I think trend changes and now computer os and software are stable and give us all we need. Why upgrade when the work is done nicely? Why try change if it's not broken? And why would we want to have tons of eye candies and whistles when we are confortable with our tools. People start to know that new product from Microsoft mean new bug, bigger os, long time to implement, problem with old application etc... I think it's time Microsoft learns from Open Source, I remember few years ago how many time the question was asked: Can Open Source survive in a world of commercial software, but I can see now the new question arise, Can Commercial software Survive in a world of open source ? My answer is no, open source will be tomorrow main stream and the money will be made in the hardware and on the service a compagny has to offer to its clientele.

worse - Vista removes free conferencing

[Anonymous Coward]

Not everybody's keen on paying to license MS Office Live Communications Server to replace the free NetMeeting peer-to-peer conferencing software that used to be in 2000 and XP.

Re:I wonder if some compines will move away from M

[kace]

Now, I can see if you have current applications that you could not switch to OSS. But, the training issue I believe you are exaggerating greatly. It's hardly a "whole new way of doing things". We're talking about desktops, right? A point is still a point and a click is still a click. (I use FreeBSD. PC-BSD is reported to be a very user-freindly variant.)

And, if we're not talking about desktops, then I'm even more baffled. I've always found network administration and servers to be way easier to manage on unix than on w1ndows.

Here's our reason

[raddan]

We just finished upgrading everyone from Windows 98 to Windows XP last year. We're in the middle of an Office 2003 rollout (with mixed reviews-- a lot of people like Office XP better-- me included). XP is certainly a big improvement over 98, and we'll probably stick with it for awhile. But, looking forward, we're probably going to depend on virtualization a bit more for clients. Products like Parallels and VMWare give us enough flexibility that we can keep everyone running on their current software, but with a more flexible (and cheaper!) backend for a long time. Not to mention-- software like WINE is starting to show some promise. If we can run IE (stupid ActiveX intranet sites) and MS Office on another platform, with a minimum of user moaning, we'll do it.

Not to mention-- early adopters get bitten. I was a frequent early adopter when I was younger, but now that I'm a grumpy sysadmin who people rely on to make things work-- no thanks. Even Apple's 10.4 Server, which is the 5th generation of that piece of software, blew in certain significant ways for us at first (like Apple's crummy AD plugin failing under any important load). So I'll take "running" over "features" any day. Folks who are familiar with the BOFH can guess how I handle users who ask for shiny new things for the sake of having shiny new things.

TCO?

[Tbeehler]

So, wait. There's new training involved? I thought that's the main argument that Microsoft used against Linux in it's TCO campaign?? Microsoft lied! My feelings are now hurt! My world is crumbling around me! I'm currently beta testing Vista on a couple of workstations here at work and it's got some nice features, but the insane amount of CPU horsepower it requires to run decently is amazing.

Or, in Microsoft's case...

[Seoulstriker]

Or, in Microsoft's case, if it doesn't work, don't fix it: sell them an upgrade which doesn't work either.

I work at a big library

[majortom1981]

i work at a big library and help run the netwrok (i am a netwrok tech and my boss is the network admin) . the only computers that will be running vista are any New computers that we buy and my computer. we dont need vista on any of the other machines even though all our machines are 3ghz with a gig of ram an x600 cards. Training the public to use it would be a nightmare.

My company is sure blah

[allscan]

I think the email I got from company IT support says it best, "While Windows Vista has many attractive new features, none represent a business imperative for [us] at this time."

Businesses and Upgrades

[KoldKompress]

Of course Companies arn't going to leap for it. I'm working for a big contractor in the UK and we have almost finished one of the largest rollouts in Europe (120,000 workstations) from Windows 2000 to XP for a government agency. The only reason they are moving over to XP is because Microsoft is stopping support for earlier versions of Operating system and business integration - such as Exchange 5.5 It doesn't seem to make sense to go for businesses first - companies are generally slow on the uptake when it comes to migration on a large scale.

Old software on new OS

[CustomDesigned]

We have customers running ancient software from 16-bit mini-computers before the IBM XT. But we run it on modern computers under emulation. We also run ancient Xenix programs on modern Linux. Or are you afraid of getting sued by SCO? Other than the learning curve for anyone needing to do maintenance (and the old software is very stable), there really is no drawback. You can integrate everything via database, rpc, orb, etc. When major changes are required for an ancient module, you have the option of rewriting in your favorite language (currently Java for us and sometimes python for ease of changing hardware).

OEM Support

[HangingChad]

I mean, honestly - what does Vista do that XP doesn't?

You could ask the same question about Windows 2000. The majority of users at this customer are still on Win2K and they can do what they need to do. If they could get new Win2K licenses they might use it another ten years.

If MSFT didn't push business customers into upgrading by withdrawing support and OEM agreements that keep them from selling older versions, then I think you'd see a time horizon for os upgrades on the order of 10-12 years. Maybe longer if MSFT opened up older versions of Windows they no longer support to 3rd party vendors. I think you'd be amazed at how much life some of those older versions might really have left.

It's hard for me to believe that through a process of gradual refinement, MSFT couldn't turn Win2K into nearly the powerhouse of functionality and security that Vista represents. But there's no margin in that for Redmond, hence it won't happen. Yet that would seem to be the very value proposition that proprietary software represents. Instead gradual refinement is found more often in open source projects. I can run the same version of Ubuntu to the end of time if I'm so inclined. Even hiring a programmer or team to provide support for new products or functionality. To me that freedom is a better value proposition than Windows.

At a more basic level the software I'm using on this machine costs thousands of dollars. At home I have very useful and functional machines where the software cost is $0. Free, as in beer. Despite MSFT claims that Linux isn't free...I have machines at home that are loaded with all free software and I get lots of work done on them. The development environments are different but I seem to be able to produce apps in one environment as fast as the other. One costs thousands and when you include the cost of the supporting systems (SQL Server, Exchange) the costs top tens of thousands.

Sum it up by asking where's the value in Vista?

Re:OEM Support

[eldepeche]

At a more basic level the software I'm using on this machine costs thousands of dollars. At home I have very useful and functional machines where the software cost is $0.

This is your boss. You are fired for reading the internet at work.

I am the boss though, so I can do it all I want.

Gentoo Linux (Ignore compilation for a moment)

[dpilot]

I'm not sure exactly who but the "new car model year" mentality into software, but it's really annoying. For that matter, most Linux distributions seem to run by that model, too.

Then there's Gentoo Linux. (Ignore for a moment all the snarky remarks about waiting for it to compile, though maybe I'll come back to that, later.)

Gentoo does have releases, and the current one is 2006.1. But the releases just aren't that important. What's more important is keeping your software up to date and making sure that you get Gentoo Linux Security Advisories (GLSA) taken care of. Typically, if a system is kept properly up to date, changing a release level is a matter of changing 1 (/etc/make.profile->../usr/portage/profiles/...) symlink, and then checking that your packages are still up to date. It's about the least disruptive "revision update" ever seen, usually a non-event.

That said, other things happen along the way that can be more disruptive, like gcc and glibc (I still haven't done gcc-4.1 and glibc-2.4) migrations, monolithic to modular X, kernel 2.4 to 2.6, devfs to udev, etc. But even at that, these changes taken singly can be more easily managed than taking them all at once with a reinstall or upgrade.

As long as you don't let your system get too far behind, Gentoo Linux simply doesn't have the "new car model year" mentality.

Back to compiling. Yes, it's a pain, but I've never had fewer problems having things just work. The prerequisites were on my system, it compiled on my system, and aside from waiting for the compilations, it pretty much "just works." Back when I was running a binary/rpm based distribution I couldn't make that same claim. For the greatest part, the problems I've had have been with binary-distributed software, not source-distributed. (Exception, haven't been able to get Doomsday to work on amd64, but it's only officially distributed for x86 and ppc.)

Re:Gentoo Linux (Ignore compilation for a moment)

[eldepeche]

Debian testing is pretty much the same, except I don't have to keep a bunch of source libraries on my box.

Re:Gentoo Linux (Ignore compilation for a moment)

[Bert64]

However you lose a lot of the flexibility offered by Gentoo...
You have to run the same debian testing system as everyone else, you can't mix and match... The poster you replied to talked about how he'd held off on the upgrade to gcc 4 and modular X... On debian, once packages start being compiled by other people for gcc4 you get dragged along.. Similarly, if one debian developer updates glibc, you have to aswell, otherwise you cant run the packages he's compiled. Gentoo lets you maintain whatever versions you want, and compile subsequent programs to work with them.
You also lose the flexibility offered by USE flags, whereby you can recompile packages with different settings, for instance the redhat rpms for the pine mail program require kerberos, so if i use pine on redhat i have to keep a full set of kerberos libraries installed, on gentoo i just turn kerberos support off and build pine without it. Debian being binary based has similar issues, the builder of the package chooses what build settings you get.
As for keeping the source libraries around, you don't have to on gentoo either, you can use binary packages (and thus lose the flexibility) or if you have multiple similar/identical systems you can build these packages on one of them and distribute them to all the others. On debian by contrast, if you need to install something which is not catered for by the package management system, you have a huge ballache trying to find and install all the -dev packages you actually need.

Less is More!

[Dareth]

How many thousands of fonts could one possibly want in their documents?

I believe the argument to upgrade to the latest version of Office would be better made if they promised to not allow 10 pt Arial font ever!

True believers already know that 12pt Time New Roman is the only "TRUE" font.

Re:Less is More!

[Xiph1980]

I'm sorry, but I prefer a 12pt Georgia on A4 with 1.5" top and bottom borders, and a 1.25" inside and 1.75" outside border :)

Re:Less is More!

[Xiph1980]

Sorry to revise myself here, but actually, come to think of it, palatino linotype is even better :)

Re:Less is More!

[Petrushka]

True believers already know that 12pt Time New Roman is the only "TRUE" font.

Maybe when Times New Roman acquires the Latin Extended Additional, Combining Diacritics, and Greek Extended character sets, all of which I use on a daily basis, I'll think about it, but until then ...

Re:Less is More!

[Coryoth]

True believers already know that 12pt Time New Roman is the only "TRUE" font.

That depends on what you truly believe in. I can think of many True Believers who will swear that the one TRUE font is, of course, Computer Modern Roman 11pt or 12pt.

Re:Less is More!

[zsau]

Um, that's 10 pt you heretic.

Re:I wonder if some compines will move away from M

[NineNine]

I'd have to learn how to set up a server, I'd have to learn how to connect everything to the server. I'd have to learn Unix security. I'd have to learn how to set up drivers for all of our different software. That's at least a few weeks in a class to the tune of a few tens of thousand dollars, not to mention time/money of not being able to work on the part of my business that earns me money. That's a year's pay for an employee or two.

Mod parent down.

[Tei]

"DX10 doesn't really add any new features to the graphics capability of a system since that is largely dependent on hardware."

O_o'

Please, mod parent down.

*UNFORTUNALLY* is not true :( and DX10 have new features that upgrade DX, and that will push other stuff to hell. DX9 users and OGL users.

Re:Mod parent down.

[Anonymous Coward]

*UNFORTUNALLY* is not true :( and DX10 have new features that upgrade DX, and that will push other stuff to hell. DX9 users and OGL users.

"Pushed to hell"? OpenGL will never work on Vista??? What are you saying?

What OS are the OEM's using?

[Dareth]

Getting the new OS out in time to be pre-loaded on all the "Christmas Computer" by the OEM's is important.

How long are we going to be given the option to buy computers with XP? When will Vista be a mandatory pre-load?

From the Article...

[bronzey214]

"Those who expected the initial Vista release to generate a wave of hype will be sorely disappointed."


I'm sure the 3 people will move on with their lives.

The "Business Argument"

[Z34107]

Vista has a lot of Business features - in fact, they probably have more biz features than consumer features.

BitLocker is a nifty tech that encrypts the system volume, needing a USB key to boot. I wonder how many businesses with (stolen!) laptops would love to have this feature.

Windows MeetingSpace uses the new network implementation in Vista to allow peer-to-peer detection of clients. Meaning you bring your WiFi laptop into a conference room and you're logged into MeetingSpace. The program itself lets you collaborate - you can share an open program and work on it simultaneously, or share your entire desktop, or what have you not.

Speech Recognition is built into the OS and in my experience, actually works pretty well. I can see a lot of secretaries, typing-deficient people, bosses, etc. appreciating being able to dictate to a computer. I can also see some liability disappear as businesses "cure" carpal tunnel and other repetitive strain nonsense.

User Account Control makes it completely possible to run as a standard user or to default to standard user privileges only even when logged into an admin account.

Windows Service Hardening uses the same changes in the Vista kernel that allow IE7 "protected mode" and UAC to function to run each Windows service under its own user. This means that viruses and the like will be unable to mess with the file system, registry, etc. by piggybacking onto a Windows service, because the special user account the service runs under simply won't have those priviliges.

The new Windows Driver Model and Code Integrity make the system more secure and stable. Unsigned drivers are no longer allowed to run in kernel mode. Instead, the kernel exports a set of interfaces used to program most drivers in user mode, meaning:

• Less drivers need to be signed
• New user mode drivers will most likely be easier to program than their kernel-mode counterparts
• A user mode driver crash will not be able to cause a blue screen.

There's a bunch of other stuff, too, like Windows PowerShell that system admins are going to love (although they're releasing this for Windows XP SP2, also).

There's a lot of business features, most of them focusing on security and stability. (Vista also plays a lot nicer with Unix than XP does.) The question isn't whether there's any "business argument", but whether these features are worth the upgrade. For some businesses, they will be; for others, they won't.

Re:The "Business Argument"

[the-matt-mobile]

From what I've heard, the speech recognition doesn't work. Also, Windows Power Shell won't ship with Vista - it's a downloadable add-on. The rest of your list is utterly unimpressive. What else?

Re:The "Business Argument"

[MioTheGreat]

One demo failed. There was a problem with the gain on the mic during that demo. In any case, the Speech Recognition is actually quite good. You just don't hear about the successful demonstrations of it because you read slashdot. ;)

Re:The "Business Argument"

[glamslam]

Wow, how much do you get paid to astroturf for Microsoft? What a cool job to have!

Re:The "Business Argument"

[the-matt-mobile]

I read slashdot, yes. But I'm no slash-bot. I disagree with the prevailing liberal politics here, the Microsoft bashing, and most of the other drivel. I'm here just looking for the occasional gem.

So, since you speak of this great Vista-Speech-Recognition, show me the proof . Microsoft had Speech Recognition since the Win3.1 days - I could say simple things like "minimize", "maximize", etc. and do common windowing functionality. So, they've had nearly 15 years to improve since that time - show me the links, the video, the reviews. I'd love to see it.

Re:The "Business Argument"

[Anonymous Coward]

You got that right.

Re:The "Business Argument"

[stewbacca]

Speech Recognition is built into the OS and in my experience, actually works pretty well. I can see a lot of secretaries, typing-deficient people, bosses, etc. appreciating being able to dictate to a computer. I can also see some liability disappear as businesses "cure" carpal tunnel and other repetitive strain nonsense.

Mac OS has had usable speech recognition for at least the past 12 years, but it is hardly used. Why the sudden urgency for something businesses don't need?

Re:The "Business Argument"

[avanaardt]

All of the points you mentioned I can cover on my Linux network (server + clients). Sure, I know what I'm doing, and your typical Windows Admin doesn't -- but that not my problem, is it? The real "business argument" I have is "can the users do their jobs without the technology interrupting their work?" Yes, they can. "New user mode drivers will most likely be easier to program than their kernel-mode counterparts". Um. Sally Secretary really likes that. Do you actually know what a "business feature" is?

Re:The "Business Argument"

[Z34107]

The "business feature" part of user-mode drivers is an increased percentage of time spent productively due to a more stable computing environment - they kill blue screens. I wanted to alleviate the fears of slashbots that

1. Microsoft was trying to force every hardware vendor to pony up $dough to get their drivers signed, or
2. that driver programmers will have to work five times harder to rewrite XP drivers

As for your "Linux can do this all" kneejerk, recall that the grandparent asked "what can Vista do that XP can't?". And I'm sure there are plenty of competent system administrators who know how to use Windows.

What's with the new formats?

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

Granted, I haven't been keeping up to date on the technical goings-ons of Office 2007, but why a new Word/Excel/etc. format? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the current formats date back to MS Office 2000 (which I'm still using)?

Re:What's with the new formats?

[doktor-hladnjak]

Probably more than you ever wanted to know about the new Office 2007 formats.

Basically, the new formats (docx, xlsx, pptx) are a zip archive containing a bunch of XML files. The old format dates back to Office 97.

At what point will new file formats backfire?

[WoTG]

When the computer market was growing by leaps and bounds, the sheer number of new installs of the latest software would eventually push people to upgrade their own older office software. But now that the installed base of Office 97/2K/XP/2K3 is so huge, never mind all the other office suites that attempt to be compatible with the O2K formats, is this going to happen with whatever format Office 2007 uses?

I know that I'm not likely to be using Office 2007 for at least a few years, if ever, so until then, folks are just going to have to make sure they do a "save as" for me. I'm pretty sure that I'm not alone.

I don't really follow the Office 2007 file format news, is the new format the default format?

Re:At what point will new file formats backfire?

[doktor-hladnjak]

Microsoft has a free download that will allow certain older versions of Office to read and write the new formats. Moreover, there's some sort of automatic downloading and installing of it when you try to open an Office 2007 document in an earlier version the first time.

The new format is the default, but there's of course a setting where you can change the default to the old 97-2003 format.

It doesn't matter.. yet

[curlynoodle]

In my business, industrial automation, I have customers that are still using DOS, OS/2, Netware, and Windows 95/NT for programming and operator interface PCs. Upgrading to a new OS often requires upgrading the 15-30 year old control hardware because the PC applications will not run on the latest Windows. Yes, I have done some virtualization in-house as proof of concept, but manufacturing companies cannot justify the expense just to use the latest OS.

Only after a major breakdown, vendor support becomes nonexistant, or other serious complication, do such companies begin to consider making changes.

Most unfortunately, once Vista becomes available at Best Buy, Frys, and CompUSA, the availability of "legacy" Windows will disappear. I have experienced this tryng to purchase new copies of NT and 2000 for installation on brand new Dell workstations.

Good point, bad example?

[remmelt]

In most every place I've worked or studied with a decent number of computers the OS was roled out via Ghost or something like that. I've never ever heard of any company who just unpack their computer as they come in from Dell and start using them (except maybe Mac shops, I don't know). Surely you can set power profile stuff in the image?

Anyway, your point is still valid.

Re:Good point, bad example?

[RESPAWN]

You can via the image. Unfortunately, this particular office was too cheap to purchase a license for Ghost. Hence the manual software installs and profile configurations for every PC.

Re:Good point, bad example?

[Shawn is an Asshole]

You should tell them about ntfsclone (part of the Linux NTFS project). The PXE/LiveCD RIP includes it. To back up a system, it's easy:

ntfsclone --save-image /dev/hda1 -o - | gzip -9 >hda1.gz

If you want it split up into, say, 512mb files:

ntfsclone --save-image /dev/hda1 -o - | gzip -9 | split -d - hda1.gz_

To restore a system use:

gunzip -c hda1.gz | ntfsclone --restore-image - -O /dev/hda1

or if you split it up:

gunzip -c hda1.gz_* | ntfsclone --restore-image - -O /dev/hda1

If doing multiple machines, it's a good idea to resize the filesystem to as small as it will go before creating the image. For example, I generally do 8G since that will usually hold everything:

ntfsresize --size 8G /dev/hda1

Then reboot into windows to let chkdsk run (I use BartPE instead and run chkdsk /f /r c:). Go back to RIP and save your image as above. When restoring a system, run the following command directly after ntfsclone to grow the filesystem to the full size of the partition:

ntfsresize -f /dev/hda1

To write a Windows boot loader use the tool ms-sys:

ms-sys -m /dev/hda

This can be scripted very easily. In the few places where I don't automate the whole install/app install/configuration with Unattended I use a RIP-based netboot. As soon as it boots it restores the image and then restarts the computer. So if I need to reimage a dozen computers all I have to do is walk in the room, turn on the computer, hit F3, and go to the next. Then I come back 15 minutes later and see that all of them are restored.

Three cheers!

[markbt73]

So three cheers for indifference! Hip hip... ah screw it.

Think of it this way

[Drakin020]

Businesses may not want to migrate at this time because it's the end of the year alot of businesses are busy at this time and may just not be ready for this migration. Perhaps at the begining of next year they may want to deploy something new but this isnt exactly the best time.

Vista

[Chayak]

I have a technet subscription that my workplace so generously shelled out for hence I have Vista Ultimate and Office 2k7 to play with. I know a lot of computers even in my workplace are older and couldn't run Vista. We can't upgrade because of budget constraints. We're still using NT on some servers and 2k on desktops. The cost of going to Vista isn't justifiable for the amount of headaches it will likely cause and I don't see a huge increase in productivity by having a pretty interface and a load of new features that make it more secure and have yet to be tested in the wild. A little off the topic but with MS leaning towards enforcing kernel protection we may actually see a steady upgrade path that we don't see now as software loves to mod the kernel. If MS did happen to update it would likely break a lot of AV and firewall software. The same kernel modding by third party vendors is also a contributing factor to some stability issues (Not all of course... Windows ME was a virus in disguise) I'm interested in seeing how things pan out in the next year or so when Vista is in the hands of the general public.

some points to think about

[arifirefox]

1) everyone "had" to upgrade everything in the late 90's because of Y2K 2) the big deal about XP was hardware compatibility of 98 with the 32 bit stability of Windows 2000. Since we all have those things, there is little reason to get a new OS. 3) This also means it will be much harder to convince people to switch to linux. There's a major retraining cost between different versions of Windows and Office...what about replacing everything for linux and its apps? It just boggles my mind...the only way it could happen is if linux gets its act together by standardizing on 1 distro and 1 GUI *and* if Microsoft does something really stupid like not supporting W2K and XP

Office 2007 File Format Conversion

[0jjjjjjjjjj0]

Microsoft has released the conversion tools (to be used within existing versions of Office, not as standalone viewers) on their download site, or the Office site. I can't see a way to directly link to the update, as it is country dependent and some updates may require validation (surprise, surprise).

File formats

[Shawn is an Asshole]

You do know that Microsoft has a Compatability Pack for Office 2000-2003, right? It adds support for the new formats.

Re:File formats

[LWATCDR]

Well that is a good thing and a huge change.
I am shocked.

Re:File formats

[Shawn is an Asshole]

They're also funding this open source (BSD) project to add ODF support to Office XP-2007. It also includes a converter for going OpenDocumentOffice OpenXML without requiring Word.

Not Worth it and a DRM filling too ? Yum !

[speedlaw]

For my small office, XP is stable, and Word 97 (tried others and they just bloatwared the machines) is OK. The vast majority of businesses do "open, Save As, Print", with an occasional "Cut" and "paste". Some use spreadsheets....oooooooo ! With these requirements, my Mac Sys 7 with WriteNow 4.0 was all that was needed...in the 90's. I now do the same things with massively more chip and memory...WTF ? If you are not in a graphics or massive LAN system, there's no reason to dump any current software. That covers probably 75% of the user base. Vista and it's yummy DRM filling will come soon. I'm glad I'm not a professional IT guy, cause you are going to get MASSIVE calls at home from friends, family and superiors from work who "just happen to have one question even tho it's night" and that question is going to be... Why can't I get this thing to copy a DVD or CD "for my kids". Change your phone # now.

Anyone? Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously guys... does ANYONE at this place work in corporate IT? You guys have the same puling, whiny story every time Microsoft releases ANYTHING.

Seriously, get over the OS penis envy thing. Lunix will never be ready for the desktop, and most people don't have their rich mummies and duddies buying them Mac Books every time a new one comes out: your average citizen simply can't afford to buy in to your beloved Apple monopoly, then pay $150 for every point release service pack which MS offers for free... and THEN not be able to use any software besides iTunes... unless they decide to BUY WINDOWS in addition to OSX, thereby having mummy and duddy rectify the major deficiencies in Apple's products (at a greater cost in both time and money, of course).

So it's WIntel and WAMD for the masses, ad infinitum. Welcome to the "Reality Based Community".

---

Back to my point: ANY widescale corporate rollout takes time, and we are talking at LEAST a year. You don't make major revisions to your Active Directory over a weekend, and you don't start anything beyond a research phase without a final product.

Now that Vista is OFFICIALLY out, corporations can BEGIN PLANNING their deployments. But considering the glacial pace an organization with 1000+ seats will (by simple necessity) be operating at, it's going to take a long time.

There are too many Lunix d00dz here, and not enough IT professionals. So why don't you guys lay off the big subjects, since this is way too far over your heads? Stick to discussing how your roommate is failing out of college because he is passed out in the dorm every day, and playing World of Warcraft every night. At least you guys can speak authoritatively on that subject.

Win2k still used

[wikinerd]

Come on. Win2k is still used in the workplace. Just imagining cost-averse businesses thinking about Vista is like telling us a story from La-La Land. Seriously, companies seek to minimise cost, and many of them even forget the meaning of investment (like, buying 19" TFTs to employees instead of refurbished 17" CRTs can make them mor productive). Don't talk about Vista in the workplace until 2010, please.

Re:Win2k still used

[Arimus]

Our company has, in my opinion, sensibly decided that where possible users will not be given bigger and bigger monitors but instead two 17" tft's.

I'm using that setup and find I can work alot more effectively with two monitors than one...

Finally!

[Jackyshadow]

After read through the comments above, I'm amazed that on the releasing day of Vista, Win XP is finally recognized as a works-fine, customer satisfaction product.

Training is expensive

[typidemon]

True. I also wonder if training is really that big a hurdle anymore. As the general public (and especially long term business users) get more tech savvy can't we expect the average user to just need a couple hours of play time to re-learn where the core functionality is? Everything the average user needs is in the ribbons of Office07, its just a matter of learning their arrangement.

I work at Boeing Australia, and the people who would have had real exposure to *nix and open office are the minority, the vast majority.

Boeing Australia has ~2500 staff, if for some reason that it only took one day of training to catch everybody up it would cost:
2500 employees
AU$400 average wage per day (on average) (conservative)
2500 x $400 = AU$1,000,000

Yep, it would cost a cool million for every day in training. That doesn't include the ripple costs, the costs involved in actually getting training working, or that training won't take them back to 100%

Free software that is different to the software you have, isn't free

God

[Anonymous Coward]

"And the new file formats, which will be easier to use with high-end corporate programs such as those that run servers, mean users on older versions of Office will have to download a program to open documents and spreadsheets sent with the new technology. "

God.

Re:I wonder if some compines will move away from M

[PitaBred]

And if someone gave me a pickup, I'd have to learn to drive the pickup truck, and get a license. I think I'll just keep running back and forth with this wheelbarrow. I know how to pay the manufacturer to change the tire on it, and buy a new one every few years. Why change the way things are done and get a vehicle that's more efficient and free in all senses of the word?

Re:Finally! - No kidding.

[Anonymous Coward]

No kidding. The hipocracy here knows no bounds.

Even when someone does pipe up with some lists of the wildy useful features (as several have done above) they get buried and glazed over by more fanbois touting the success of their OS of choice, and how that feature was "stolen" or already present.

Well, y'know what? If your OS was so great, and it presented that feature so well, maybe people would use it. But they don't. And it's not a stagnation issue, or a marketing issue, it's a simplicity issue. Let Microsoft steal it if they're going to make it better and make it available to the public. I don't care if your OS does this really nifty security or feature... if you're the only one that can make use of it, because of all the other glaring problems includes overall ease of use (for you certain OS users, and you know who you are) then a service is being done to bring that useful aspect to the community and world at large.

Now, if people continue posting the "but such-and-such OS did it first" arguments for the sake of patting their forward-thinking backs, consider the head start your OS had with those features, and they STILL couldn't steal the marketshare. Why? Take your brownie points about having had those features in the past, and be happy that the world now gets them too.

For all of you who are eager to mod this flamebait, consider the close-minded arguments above. People need to grow up and see things in more shades than black (big bad MS) and white (their OS of choice). It's all gray, and if you've hit a hard stand, you're doing something wrong.

Re:I wonder if some compines will move away from M

[NineNine]

Well as of right now, OSS in no way would work for my business (none of the software I need exists), so it's a moot point.

Re:Anyone? Anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft _always_ charges for point releases.
Tell me how you upgrade from Windows 3.0 to 3.1 for free?
Or 95 to 98 to ME for free? (4, 4.1, 4.5)
Or from 2000 to XP for free? (5, 5.1)

Nope.

[jotaeleemeese]

If you have IT policies in place the CEO can't just plug any damn laptop he wishes to the network. I would not allow it, and I am not high in the chain food in my company at all.

If he does that would be an audit failing and ultimately he, or somebody close to him, would be responsible for such failings.

Sarbanes & Oxley is mostly fluff, but at least CEOs know where the bucket stops.

Re:Anyone? Anyone?

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

Flamebait with a core of truth.

The original article is just plain foolish. The place I work moved from NT4 to XP Pro (without SP2!) 18 months ago. This involved upgrading a sigificant proportion of the hardware so it was fairly big bucks, although why they bypassed SP2 is beyond me - there are a lot of pointers that suggest incompetence somewhere in the department.

They will not be moving to Vista in the next few years. Vista has higher hardware requirements and offers better security. The company has a firewall and most users do not have admin rights anyway. Who needs Vista under these circumstances?

The previous place I worked moved to Win2K from NT4 some time around 2002, although XP was available. Slow adoption is the rule and only people who have no idea expect anything else.