Slashdot Mirror
Now Is Not the Time for Vista
narramissic writes "With nearly a month of Vista availability behind us, businesses don't seem to be in any rush to take the leap. An article on ITworld cites two significant reasons for the foot-dragging. First, Microsoft's case-by-case approach to Vista patches, which is leaving some problems unpatched until after the consumer release in January. Second, application (in)compatibility. From the article: 'Some of the applications that still aren't compatible with Vista include IBM Corp.'s Lotus Notes e-mail and collaboration suite; Cisco Systems Inc.'s and Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.'s VPN clients; Intuit Corp.'s accounting software QuickBooks 2006 and earlier versions; and anti-virus (AV) software from Trend Micro Inc.'"
'
It's just not economic. It seems to me companys will not migrate to Vista until they absolutely HAVE to have Vista on their machines. That could be awhile.
Where I work, the MD openly uses warez. The version of Adobe professional he has is the same pirate copy I have.
Once the WGA has a decent crack, I'm sure he'll be upgrading.
The others I understand, and if Quickbooks in particular is broken I can't upgrade our machine (natch; I wanted the Media Centre stuff for my 360).
But why would you care that the XP version of an AV product doesn't work on Vista? Surely there are enough differences between the OSes that you'll need a new virus scan?
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
That should top the list.
Because we all know that corporations love to throw out their existing infrastructure and redeploy with newly released software.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
An OS that wont run Notes should be at the top of every IT manager's list, as far as I'm concerned.
Seems to me that it may also be that CEOs and others who make decisions haven't had the chance to experience it on a new home computer yet. I remember XP didn't take off for a while, but then was adopted by businesses more and more as execs started having it at home and liking the pretty colors and the bells and whistles. I suspect these decisions aren't based as much on stability as we'd all like to think -- I think a lot of adoption of Vista will happen when powerful people (not necessarily technical people) start wanting some of Vista's fun or pretty stuff at the office. And they just haven't had a chance to find out about it yet.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
Especially the software incompatibility issues. What business will switch if their apps won't work properly? Not to mention the hardware requirements, etc.
This doesn't come as a surprise as with its new look it will take time to get used for the business users.
Also apart from softwares it will take lot of time for drivers to come out.
I know that my organization (I work for a leading Investment bank) is not considering it until 2008 for even testing.
Now is not time for DRM either.
Never.
I don't see how the slow adoption of Vista is any different from previous Windows releases, except that the consumer version is being delayed a month rather than be released in tandem. The DoD only truly migrated fully to XP early last year; no corporation with a large IT infrastructure is going to be eager to lead the charge without concrete proof that upgrading will benefit them in the long term.
It could be that the only purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others.
Some corporations are still running Windows 98. Many are on Windows 2000. Very rarely will a corporation migrate to a one month old operating system - they'll trial it in very select areas to shake out the bugs and tech support issues they are likely to face and then deploy 6-30 months later (depending on the date of their upgrade cycle).
Vista *will* roll out to businesses, but don't expect it to overtake XP any faster than XP overtook 2000, or 2000 overtook 98, etc.
And Notes won't run? Damn - I'm upgrading NOW.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Yeah, If MS would just bundle some ego stroking audio chat bot with Vista that told those CEOs how great they were all day, it'd be an immediate hit ;)
Seriously, what reason is there to upgrade right now? You don't need to have a reason NOT to upgrade. When businesses eventually need new machines and Vista is the OEM OS, then businesses, and for that matter, academic institutions, etc., will start using it. This will be true if it turns out to be the best OS ever or a complete piece of unnecessary bloatware. It's strange to me that this continues to be brought up on /., it seems so obvious.
I'm just sayin'.
I'm sure the next computer I buy will end up having Vista come pre-installed, for my "convenience". Anyone know if the previous versions of Office work with it? I'm particularly interested in Office 2K (Word, Powerpoint, and Excel), since that has worked the best for me and is still considered the standard format in a number of workplace environments.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Good.
Notes is such a shitty program I'm surprised it's running in WinXP much less Vista....
Dirty Pirate Hooker
No support for Cisco VPN software or Lotus Notes? Why would Microsoft cater its release of Vista to businesses when it doesn't support software that is essential for many businesses to run? I'm sure Microsoft will blame the developers of the incompatible software for not rushing out a release that is compatible with Vista and those developers will blame Microsoft for breaking compatibility to fix the broken security architecture of previous versions of Windows. I'm also sure that Microsoft's response to businesses that use Lotus Notes would be something to the tune "Have you considered using Microsoft Exchange? We can guarantee it's 100% compatible with Vista." It's things like this that make me happy that I no longer use Microsoft products.
Anything that is incompatible with Lotus Notes is a step in the right direction. Notes email is unspeakably bad.
I have a small client (75 users) and we are on a five year plan for new hardware... it was up in October. We bought new Dell's and Vista Business in November, and rolled them out last week.
.dlls. The other problem was solved perfectly by running the shortcut in compatibility mode.
In the Ad industry we have to use lots (7) of custom apps for Media, Accounting, and Shipping. We had 2 problems. 1 wasn't the program but the installer didn't detect the correct OS. It was a small app so we just copied it over with its
As for the users: very happy with Vista and Office 2007. I mean, really happy. I'm sure it helps that they now have big flat screen monitors and faster computers, but we are getting lots of good feedback at the agency.
The OS: We wrote a few custom gadgets to automate a few tacks in about 10 minutes a piece, and people love them. We don't do the indexed search for network shares so people really aren't talking about that, but believe it or not, they love the animations and the "pretty" stuff. We never had a problem with XP crashing or anything so the fact that Vista is stable doesn't really change much for us.
For anyone thinking about Office 2007: It went over huge here, between the ribbon and all the visual additions (especially smart objects). Actually our Accounting department is loving the new excel, and our president is pretty excited about the toys in powerpoint. Word seems to be liked but that is the one we hear least about.
From my perspective: The Vista imaging software and new group policy is awesome. We did the rollout over the weekend, and it went off without a hitch. I'm not really giving MS credit for that, we worked on the image for a few weeks, but we are very happy so far.
IMHO, businesses aren't in a rush to upgrade to Vista because of the incompatabilities mentioned in the article, and the fact that upgrading costs a lot of money. Some of which, these businessess don't have, or weren't planning on using for a Vista upgrade.
If I may speculate on behalf of the businesses, with all the applications that they likely use on a daily bases not working, and the increased cost of upgrading (which you then have to pay off/make up in increased profits), they'd rather wait until most of these problems are fixed in the operating system they're going to pay for. You're probably thinking "well, there's no time like the present", and you'd be wrong. Businesses stand to loose a lot of money if the applications they rely on (and perhaps weren't mentioned in the incompatability list, but also have limited/no functionality) don't work until 6 months later when MSFT releases an update to fix all (nice dream, mind if I join?) the applications compatability issues.
Businesses would rather stick with what they've got right now for the next little while. It doesn't cost them as much to maintain an OS thats already been installed and is functioning, as it would to install Vista, and deal with all the resulting problems. It doesn't matter to them if they wait an extra 6 months to upgrade, because it will mean less loss in revenue.
Just my opinion.
I think one of the biggest hurdles facing enterprise adoption of Vista is hardware requirements. I don't know if we have any machines in my company that could make use of the new features let alone run the damn thing.
When nothing except certain M$ software will work with Vista, it's ready to go.
[sarcasm off]
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
I just bought a laptop. It came with XP, not Vista. Why is that?
x .html but you can not buy Vista.
Because Vista isn't out yet.
http://www.microsoft.com/Windowsvista/
January 30, 2007 is when Vista will be available. You can not buy it now. You can buy XP and get a free upgrade to Vista at select retailers, such as NewEgg http://promotions.newegg.com/microsoft/vista/inde
And honestly, people can argue until they're blue in the face about how XP is fine, but the reality is that it's five years old, technology has changed and a new OS is necessary.
Does this guy even know what an OS is? There is no reason why new technology can't be supported in an "old OS". Especially if the "new OS" is basically an update of the "old OS".
for Vista.
Has Hell frozen over yet? Then no Vista for me, thanks.
In the Ad industry we have to use lots (7) of custom apps for Media, Accounting, and Shipping. We had 2 problems. 1 wasn't the program but the installer didn't detect the correct OS. It was a small app so we just copied it over with its
As for the users: very happy with Vista and Office 2007. I mean, really happy. I'm sure it helps that they now have big flat screen monitors and faster computers, but we are getting lots of good feedback at the agency.
The OS: We wrote a few custom gadgets to automate a few tacks in about 10 minutes a piece, and people love them. We don't do the indexed search for network shares so people really aren't talking about that, but believe it or not, they love the animations and the "pretty" stuff. We never had a problem with XP crashing or anything so the fact that Vista is stable doesn't really change much for us.
For anyone thinking about Office 2007: It went over huge here, between the ribbon and all the visual additions (especially smart objects). Actually our Accounting department is loving the new excel, and our president is pretty excited about the toys in powerpoint. Word seems to be liked but that is the one we hear least about.
From my perspective: The Vista imaging software and new group policy is awesome. We did the rollout over the weekend, and it went off without a hitch. I'm not really giving MS credit for that, we worked on the image for a few weeks, but we are very happy so far. Dude... Umm... Sorry to interrupt but there's an express courier from Microsoft at the front desk. He claims he's got a complementary laptop for you.
I remember XP didn't take off for a while, but then was adopted by businesses more and more as execs started having it at home and liking the pretty colors and the bells and whistles.
Yeah, and the funny thing is: once the IT department started deploying XP, they virtually removed all the fancy funny things with group policies.
1) Most companies have volume licenses and custom Windows configurations.
Like my company, the first thing they do is wipe the HD and install their customized Windows image. I know of some companies who are still on Win2K. Eventually, they'll upgrade but on their timeline, not MS.
2)Most of the new user features require serious hardware.
Most users won't get the nifty UI changes unless they go with better hardware. Unlike XP and Win2K, the basic onboard video won't work. Most companies don't buy a computer with a separate video card unless it's for a specific reason (i.e. Computer for a graphic designer). They pick the basic model with onboard video because of cost. The end user will never see the nifty Aero effects and thus no real benefit to upgrading a user.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Seriously, what business has a testing cycle for an OS that can be done in a month? I mean where I am we're JUST NOW getting ready to go XP, 5.5 years after release, and nearly half of the machines will stay on Win2000 indefinitely. A month (or even a year or two) is not foot-dragging, it's responsible business use of IT.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Now we have a piece of software that is called vista. This is another big mistake of M$.
I swear I've seen the parent text here copied-and-pasted into another article. What, do you have the Slashdot Mod-Point Play Book; running it play-by-play?
Hardly news. This should not be read as a mass rejection of Vista, just an indication that corporation IT departments do their job in a reasonably competent and responsive way.
It takes about a year-and-a-half before a corporation that fully intends to transition to the new OS is ready for the "rollout." Typically this involves a good deal of preparation so that everyone in the company gets their new PC, their training classes, their new application versions, and their direction for migrating at about the same time.
At the introduction of every major Windows upgrade, the same things have happened: Gartner et al have told corporations to take their time adopting the new OS, and corporations, whether because they listen to the analysts or for their own reasons, have done so.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
I remember getting comments like "this is Windows 98". That meant I did my job as Desktop Support Specialist just right, no visible differences from OS to OS - same apps, same icons, same settings, just stability and speed baby.
I'm sure I can pull off the same trick with Vista.
Heybiff
P.S. The school I used to work at will surely do exactly as the OP said, and start rolling out Vista on as many of thier 400+ machines as they can as soon as they can. Leadership in the Tech department is very into bells and whistles.
Even the Sun goes down.
Just wait till all those flavors get released in 2007. Then, after 6 months you can write an article.
Seems to me the point was not about running to Linux as alternative to Vista, but staying with XP.
What I dont get is why people are blaming application incompatabilities on Microsoft. These companies have all had well over a year to release a version that works under Vista. If they are incompatable at this point it is no ones fault but their own.
With the support of the CFO and CEO, I've developed the policy that we won't even entertain Vista until a minimum of SP1 and a year of full release has passed. In other words, we won't even begin testing until January 2008. I doubt our company is alone.
I don't doubt Vista will make some traction, but it seems to me that the likelihood is in a very slow adoption rate. By the time businesses are ready to take it seriously, many companies may be very open to alternatives that will have matured quite nicely. After all--with quite a few perfectly good computers sitting around that won't run Vista either at all or very well, why should we ditch those resources when we can reallocate them as a Linux desktop?
I'm not upgrading, and I'm a huge MS user. As a matter of full disclosure, I'm a .NET programmer, SharePoint developer, I prefer MS over almost any other offering except virtualization platforms, accounting software, and media creation. I live in Washington, and regulary attend MS events in Seattle and Redmond. Now, onto the Vista:
It's slow and a resource hog, and none of their different "levels" fits well enough for me. I don't want the low end, but the level of Vista that has what I want and need has a bunch of crap I don't, and costs too much, and the next level down, has hardly of the stuff I want.
I bought a fairly beefy laptop last year, so I can run virtual servers for development when I'm on the road. It's not within the minimum guidelines for Vista. I've tried to run it on my desktop and laptop, no go.
Software I rely upon will not work with Vista. Sure, Visual Studio 2003 is a no go. I also develop in 2005, and I can build .NET 1.1 from that, but...haven't gotten it to work on Vista.
Vista will be an also ran for MS OS's. It will be like MS-DOS 4.0 (back then, I tried it, and retrograded to 3.2 very quickly). Hell, MS isn't pushing it hard like they were with XP.
What has worked in the past for MS should work for the next version, the OS should:
So, I'm sticking with my XP for now, I will wait for the next OS, the one that MS creates after learning what a disaster Vista is.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Notes isn't compatible?
There IS a reason to upgrade to Vista!
Regarding application compatibility, this is the fault of the vendor, not Microsoft. The vendors had well a year or more to get their stuff working with Vista while it was in beta.
.NET 3.0 applications up and running and enough new machines with Vista pre-installed, that would be the time to upgrade.
That said, I'm not upgrading essential work machines to Vista yet either. Once we get
Our test machines are AMD XP 1700+, 512MB, FX-5200 & 7200RPM IDE drives.
:)
They run vista fine (including Glass) and at comparable speeds to XP. They are running VS2005 & Office 2003 plus all the usual apps like Firefox etc.
I'd be surprised if your company doesn't have some systems of that calibre.
Apologies for the Monty Python reference
--I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
Is there some quota that Slashdot must post at least one pointless Vista story every day? For crying out loud, the OS isn't even available to the public yet.
Business migrations take time. Get used to it. You should be, since Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows XP Service Pack 2 have taken plenty of time to get tested and rolled out in the business world. I listed SP2 seperately because it really needs to be treated like its own OS. It's like no OS service pack we've seen before.
Vista is like every other OS since Windows 95. Nothing compelling to make most users want to upgrade, nothing compelling to make ANY business want to upgrade. Eventually XP SP2 will become ancient history and some application will require Vista, which is what usually drives OS rollouts in business. Hopefully your business is forward thinking enough to plan ahead and be ready for that day. In the meantime, no one is waiting anxiously for Vista, we're waiting for a REASON to use Vista.
Now, to figure out how to filter out stories with the word "Vista" in the subject..
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Many of our servers are still running NT 4.0. Large corporations don't always upgrade as quickly as smaller companies. Our IT staff is still working on getting individual users upgraded to XP. There isn't a single workstation in my department that can handle Vista.
There are Vista-compatible Cisco VPN client builds, starting with version 4.8.xxxx.
I saw it a couple days ago too, but can't seem to find it.
d =11333134
Though here's one I found from January 2006 (and it was modded +5 Insightful):
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=135647&ci
Since when has Lotus Notes ever been compatible with windows?
Windows 2000 was probably the most anticipated Windows release since Windows 95. Everyone was waiting for it. I remember seeing articles on what "NT 5.0" would bring as early as 1996, 1997. Everyone wanted it to bring NT stability to home users, and driver support to Windows NT. I was one of those people who was curious about the hype. It was a big deal. And many of us were reasonably impressed with it.
Merely a year or two later, Windows XP came along. It was the release no one really asked for. What did it provide, other than a change of look and menus that most of us disabled the first chance we got? (And maybe fast user switching. Yes, later service packs would provide firewalls and other features, but I am talking about the first release.) I remember seeing it for the first time, and I was unimpressed.
Experience in the past has showed that we better wait until SP1 or maybe even SP2 before considering a migration.
Maybe 10% of the workstations at work is "Vista ready". We most likely will not write off the other 90%.
I would say, give it at least a year and probably a servicepack, and only then start evaluating the costs and benefits.
Why? Well first of all I'm a masochist: TMI I know. But they suckered me in with the free year long trial of Vista RC1. It's shiny, pretty, and unfinished but it's more than usable.
Plus, I like to experiment with the new features and see what's under the hood. Switch to Gentoo you say? I could, but then I'd have to get my hands gooey at levels that I'd rather remain a mystery (the kernel should remain distant, angry, and invisible like a God).
I'm Microsoft's ideal early adopter: Easily impressed and willing to try new things along pre-arranged paths. Yeah, Apple did most of it before them and others before Apple...but I'm not a communist and don't believe in that hippy crap. Like Sony and consoles, the next generation doesn't arrive until the biggest behemoth in the industry says so. Finally clarity is brought to my world.®
I'm running the newest cisco VPN client on vista right now...........it works fine.......
I'm a cucumber
it's an old troll, I've seen it loads of times. I don't even think it's relevant anymore. I haven't tried q3 on linux, if I want some quakey action I load up cube or sauerbraten :).
I Definately agree that it is just not time for vista. Although many new functions of vista are very hand for example power shell. As well as much more functionality on the server side. the incompatibility of software such as quickbooks shows it is not worth it. I know my current company as well as the last 6 companies i have worked at used quickbooks. None of those companies planned on using anything other. without the software there is no point. Remember leading edge not bleeding edge.
Right? Uh, guys...
Also, because they're pissed at all the A/V vendors - one, they're making money of M$'s cash cow; two, their very existence is a constant reminder of everything that's wrong with M$ products; three, they're making money of M$'s cash cow; four, they often catch and correct security problems before M$ can even admit they exist; five, they're making money of M$'s cash cow; six . . .
We may not have flying cars, but at least (thanks to Mr. Ballmer) we have flying chairs! Maybe M$ should patent that; after reading my comment, I'll bet Mr. Ballmer'd love to give me a flying chair!
Maybe it is too costly for Microsoft to dedicate resources for compatibility issues. It might be a nice way clean-up Win32... maybe anti-Wine? They probably knew people and companies won't jump ASAP to Vista (it happened to Win2k3 server), so, why they should care? Is Vista the Windows Me equivalent?
Actually most versions of Windows do a lot of compatibility checks and fixes, but it was because Microsoft wanted people to upgrade (I would say it was a long term plan to migrate everyone to NT). Win 95 was a Win 3.x upgrade, 2000/XP were Win 9x/Me upgrades. For example, Win95 did check for a lot of DOS device drivers - junk probably nobody used like ancient network drivers and weird tape drives.
If I had a product incompatible on Vista, probably Microsoft would blame me for doing stuff they have probably documented "it won't work", and probably also ask me why I didn't test it in all those Vista beta versions. It's a great opportunity for software companies to release new products (regardless of usefulness).
Anyway, they can slowly wait until XP becomes officially obsolete.
I know of some companies who are still on Win2K. Eventually, they'll upgrade but on their timeline, not MS.
I recently worked for a big company that was finally biting the bullet and converting all their W95 machines to W98. I figure they'll start considering Vista in 2015 or so.
Somehow I doubt that this is an isolated case. Most business people understand that if you have something that's doing the job, you don't replace it with something unfamiliar.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
...(and it was modded +5 Insightful)
Hmmm... Maybe getting a copy of the playbook isn't such a bad idea...
That's because it run so contradictory to our own experiences.
Then again, I've read pieces where everyone and their brother had trouble installing/running Linux. I've read others where they've had no issues running Linux.
Perhaps someone who's posting a piece on how they've had no trouble installing/running Vista has their own agenda?
"Switch to Gentoo you say? I could, but then I'd have to get my hands gooey at levels that I'd rather remain a mystery (the kernel should remain distant, angry, and invisible like a God)"
I can't for the life of me understand why you would need to get your hands gooey. These provide similar desktop experiences to Vista without compiling the kernel. Looking Glass on Ubuntu, Beryl 3D on Gentoo, Novells SLED and Suns Looking Glass 3D desktop.
"I'm not a communist and don't believe in that hippy crap"
Good for you, I'm a republican myself too. But talk about mixed metaphors, Hippys generally don't like to be told what to do and good communist think what the central committee tells them what to think.
was I'll be upgrading (Score:1 FUD)
davecb5620@gmail.com
Let's go through the bullet points, shall we?
1) An OS with an exceptionally delayed production cycle. From a company with a less than stellar coding rep. Color me cynical, but I'm still worried they pushed it out the door early.
2) They rewrote the tcp stack. This terrifies me. We have what is essentially untested code in a critical component of the OS. Again, from a company with a less than stellar coding rep.
3) Support; It takes longer than a month for techs to figure out a new OS.
4) Infrastructure; Most systems in place in a corporation can't run vista. Further, we will not be upgrading just to pay the new tax to MS.
If in three or five years vista adoption is lacking, then that's a story; As of now, it's just common sense.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
But even if they wipe the machine, it came preloaded with Vista. That counts as a sale to MS as well as their "user base" for Vista machines. What OS it runs after the cleanup by IT is another matter that they may not care about. I had to fight with Dell to even consider selling me machines I wanted for my company without an OS. They kept trying to tell me they were cheaper with Windows on them. They DO sell machines without a Microsoft OS, but they are slim pickins and did not match the specs I told them. They acted like I was asking them to build me a rocket and put peanutbutter inside. This is something they had never heard of they tried to exclaim. So much for their banter about how they make custom computers JUST FOR YOU.
...I'm running Notes right now and there is a Cisco VPN client and I've got at least 3 different "power shells"... and a very nice and functional GUI... No it is not OS X... it is SuSE.
Windows 2000 was *perfect* for corporate environments.
XP Pro is/was fine, too, but it really didn't offer much over Win2K for corporate users. I suppose the firewall is nice, sort of.
That's why Vista is gonna be a tough sell to corporate customers for a while. In properly configured corporate networks, the client machine is so locked down, that the OS almost doesn't matter.
Basically what I'm saying is, businesses run applications, not operating systems. If their apps all work, and their network is locked down like it should be, then why would they upgrade *anything*?
First of all, in a business environment I'll attempt to make the following, quite imaginary, statements:
For desktop Linux in the workplace, you don't neccessarily want users installing software, let alone Quake 3. Many business IT people see the bigger picture in which IT plays a role. That bigger picture is that the business needs to run applications and manage data that's relevant to their operation. Nothing in that role description requires Windows or anything people are familiar with. I still see business running on terminal connections to a larger system somewhere. Nothing "NEEDS" a mouse... it's just a nice thing that many people have come to believe is normal. And when it comes to training employees, I believe that most of the training should and often does consist of understanding the DATA [information] that the business runs on. The user interface in those situations are somewhat irrelevant though admittedly not completely irrelevant. (A good UI is not the exclusive domain of Windows and I have seen countless BAD-UI applictions written for Windows as well, so the fact that something runs on Windows is no guarantee that the users will be more productive sooner or ever.)
And as a Linux apologist, I have to ask everyone to recall the "ease of use" that DOS/Windows had before Win95. And since package management isn't unified yet, it's obvious what is holding back the ability to "easily install Quake 3." The time will come though... it'll come. I imagine that if, for example, everything shifted over to RPM with YUM repositories, installing, updating and deleting packages could be managed through a convenient GUI such as Yumex. (It works really well in FC5 and 6) The problem isn't lack of technology, it's the diversity of technology combined with a presently low market drive. So the argument is actually a catch-22 argument. You're saying "linux sucks because because there's not enough mainstream apps to make it useful and those that do exist are too inconvenient to install and therefore it has a lower market share." I hold that as trends seem to indicate that the market share is growing in a very erosive way [meaning many people try Linux because they are annoyed with Windows whose market share they are eroding], "Linux sucks because its present market share is the cause for not having all the main-stream apps that other OS environments enjoy... presently."
It could also be the fact that any new machines bought to replace dead/broken ones came pre-installed with XP. As more of these cheap machines died or locked up due to virus attacks, as they frequently do, XP gained seats.
Now, as these XP machines are brought down by virus, and since they do not come with install media for such a case, you can either pay $300 for a new copy of XP to reinstall (which will be missing all of the important device drivers), then spend the next two weeks trying to get everything to work again; or pay $500 for a completely new machine with shiney buttons and everything already set up.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Windows ain't done, 'til Lotus won't run!
Vip
This happened when W2K and XP was released.
c net
0 1
s _10_5/ai_63507054
During the same period (around the first few monnths of its released) people said the same old thing, the same old articles were being writen...
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-249972.html?legacy=
http://www.serverwatch.com/news/article.php/14002
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FOX/i
I know slashdot is the mecca of microsoft bashing but please shut-up, nothing to see here.
New platforms take time to get into production. I am sure most compitent IT shops have a team devoted to looking into planning Vista deployments. I am sure in most places IT desktop purchses for the past six months have been changed to taken into account the greater hardware requirements that Vista will need.
Software needs to be ported API's and driver models need to be learnt. With all new computers starting to be pre-installed I am sure soon enough more of an effort will be put into software applications to be ported.
I'd imagine that most companies will switch to Vista as part of the next hardware cycle.
I'm not sure why anyone expected businesses to jump on Vista, most companies prefer to keep what's already working rather than switching to something new and adding unneeded risk. They usually switch when staying on their current platform is more risky than moving to a new one (like losing support for the OS or inability to run new apps).
Download free e-books, lectures, and tutorials at bookgoldmine.com
Seems to me that it may also be that CEOs and others who make decisions haven't had the chance to experience it on a new home computer yet. I remember MAC OS hasn't take off yet, but it will be adopted by businesses more and more as execs started having it at home and liking the pretty colors and the bells and whistles. I suspect these decisions aren't based as much on stability as we'd all like to think -- I think a lot of adoption of MAC OSX will happen when powerful people (not necessarily technical people) start wanting some of MAC OSX's fun or pretty stuff at the office. And they just haven't had a chance to find out about it yet.
always mosh clockwise
Perhaps most people here don't work for big companies, but the last big company I worked for is 2 years behind any newly released OS. It took that long for us to get XP. I don't know how anybody can expect companies to deploy a new OS from Microsoft 1 month after it is released.
Testing a new OS in a month may be optimistic for a large organisation, but seriously, if you take two years to evaluate software, you're absurdly under-resourced (or just incompetent). What did you think you were going to learn after the first couple of times you installed it on a trial network and checked that everything you needed was working? Whole businesses come and go in that time frame! Really, either it's worth the time and money to upgrade or it's not, and if you can't make that call within a few weeks, it's probably not (or at least not until a service pack is out that addresses the concerns raised during your trial process).
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Even if you don't play on using linux and plan on wiping it and installing windows on it, or even dual booting, your system will be linux hardware compliant, so you have a better chance of selling it later. just bought a linux system at http://madtux.org/ for around 300$ and installed centos(rhel_code) on it.
that these companies have had plenty of time to have new versions ready for Vista, this is truly a case of application vendors sandbagging their own customers. And why would anyone act surprised that corporations aren't jumping on Vista, no I.T. staffer worth their salary runs a new OS on release month for production, why would Vista (and XP or 2000 or Linux or Solaris, etc...) change this?
As I understand it, business usually have contracts with HP or Dell to replace all their PCs once ever 3 - 5 years. Businesses get whatever the current OS is, at the time.
So, the lack of immediate upgrading may have nothing to do with Vistas performance, or businesses opinions of Vista.
No body has pointed this out yet, that the difference is 64-bit. Like 2d graphics acceleration, 32-bit will be the backwater poorly-optimized part of new processors. Yeah, you will be able to run your pirate copy of XP on new computers but over time it will get less and less efficient to do so. This transition basically solves Microsoft's problem of XP being 'good enough', so there will actually be a faster transition to Vista than say to 95->98, 98->ME, 95->NT, NT->2k, 2k->2k3. Only 3.1->95 will have been a faster transition IMO.
When a machine is brought down by a virus, we generally try to pop Linux
on it unless the user can make a case for needing windows.
*sigh* back to work...
We have an office full of three year old PCs that run XP perfectly well. They don't come close to the specs needed to run Vista. There is no way we are going to replace 15 PCs just to run Vista.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
I have a Vista RTM notebook running Cisco 4.8.1.0590 and I can connect back to my office with it just fine using RSA SecurID. It has worked for 2 months at least. So maybe the data is old?
By 2003 (you said 'recently'), no company would be running Windows 95 and choose to upgrade to Windows 98. You can't even fucking buy it anymore. Your last sentence could be a valid point if you didn't ruin it with made up facts. You sound like Al Gore in the presidential debates.
Sad to say, the cost of upgrading the machines is trivial in comparison to 5 years of salary for even a low-paid white collar worker. More importantly, the psychological boost of getting new hardware is much more significant than a bonus check that barely breaks 1-2% of your annual salary. Now, I'll agree that most people would have been just as happy with new hardware and a clean XP install, but there's still a little tick you get for getting "the new stuff".
Also, when a potential employee interviews they look around at the equipment - would you take the job with a brand new desktop and 20" LCD monitor, or the one with a 5 year old, smudged beige box and a 17" CRT and an extra $400/yr in salary?
I'm not a big fanboi of MS, but some of their stuff really does work, and the rollout tools have been high on the list for quite some time. If you really hate them, just call this anecdotal evidence and sweep it under the carpet.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
There's no troll like an old troll ...
Windows has a loooong way to go to catch up to functionality that is available "out of the box" with almost all consumer linux distros.
Seems to me the point was not about running to Linux as alternative to Vista, but staying with XP.
...but after the vista migration you're still in the same jam! The size and scope of the project gives all the more reason to start NOW, with plenty of time to get it right.
Actually, now is the perfect time for end-user institutions to begin linux desktop migration projects, and to push vendors to fully function in that environment. After all, we're talking about migrating to a different operating system, why is it just assumed it will be vista, why not linux? Start plans to migrate to linux NOW, and start testing a linux desktop replacement that works with corporate apps. I include dumping exchange in the scope of these projects. The license fees to be saved by a large institution with thousands of desktops are enormous, and with the savings comes the satisfaction and freedom of no longer being beholden to the microsoft protection racket.
I realize this is a large project, expensive in itself... hey, SO IS MIGRATING TO VISTA,
Most companies have limited budgets and simply do not upgrade just for the sake of upgrading. My company has no business need for Vista and have zero plans on upgrading to it. Our IT needs are not very complex and even Windows XP is overkill. We are one of those companies that are still running Windows 98. Want to know why? Because it still works. It runs Firefox just fine and views the intranet without any problems. MS Office 2000 runs on it (which in of itself is overkill for our needs). Simply put, I question if Vista is solution to a non-existent problem?
"Here, you need this upgrade!"
"Why?"
"Because it is more stable!"
"What we are running now is stable."
"It offers more features!"
"We disable those features now for security purposes."
"Because we want your money!"
"And there is the door. Don't let it smack you on the way out."
Bearded Dragon
I'm getting XP on my next machine while I still can.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
nice try , but you're not getting that labtop .
But i do like 'linux zealot ' . it has a nice ring to it .
and trust me , running emerge is a lot easier than installation on Windows , it's just one command ( rather than wasting your time clicking )
a proud Linux Zealot .
Slipping shoelaces ?
Why is this a surprise? Corps never immediately upgrades to a new OS. It has not and will not ever happen. Corps need a good year or two to flush out any bugs/incompatibilities with their existing software/hardware. This is not anything specific to Microsoft or to Vista. Yet again, Slashdot trying to make everything anti-Microsoft/Vista. It's really kinda funny (in a sad kind of way).
...in all fairness, are any of them compatible with anything anyway? The apps listed are particularly notorious for being crashy and unreliable on any platform.
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
I had to fight with Dell to even consider selling me machines I wanted for my company without an OS. They kept trying to tell me they were cheaper with Windows on them.
consider the source. Dell outdoes even hp for the 'remora around the shark's asshole of bill gates' award.
If microsoft wanted to force people on to Vista it would be easy.
All they have to do is end support and security patches for XP. Biz would cry, consumers would curse...but everybody would upgrade because they HAVE TO.
If you are a monopoly then use it to your advantage damn it!
Quick! make all those third party applications run on GNU/Linux & *BSD
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Microsoft's motto appears to be, "We're not happy till you're not happy."
[ home ]
Application support for Vista is half the problem, but lack of support for 64 bit architectures in general is the other half of the problem.
And I've seen users actually throw out working hardware because it was "clogged" with spyware, and they didn't have any installation media with which to reformat the machine. It is an absolutely real threat, and I suspect that it drives a not-insignificant number of new hardware purchases in the low-price segment (the $300 systems from WalMart, etc.).
Though I can't really complain; I have two nice Ubuntu servers as a result of this practice. I like to think they're happier this way.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
They released Vista.......? I thought they were still in beta...
Read his post history. Every single post he writes he bashes open source and promotes Windows.
Really? Why?
The companies I consult for have thousands of PCs that they depreciate over either a 5 year (desktop) or 9 year (server) period. In order to run Vista, these companies would need to upgrade all their PCs too. That just isn't in their budgets.
And what does Vista have that the business world really needs? The business doesn't need media player, the ability to make videos, eye-candy, fancy graphics, etc. The systems spend almost their entire lives doing siimple text based functions, data entry and reporting, Intranet now and then and some development work. They don't need DRM, that's for sure. They don't need 95% of what Vista brings to the party. So, why go to the expense to upgrade?
So what does the company use? Almost all the systems in the call-center, operations and such are still at Windows 2000. They didn't do the upgrade to XP because there was no justification other than M$ marketing noise. In reality, there wasn't an adequate return on the investment and the risk was too high. These are factors that the author of the article and M$ continue to ignore.
Doing work in the financial, insurance and pension domain, I have seen many companies still using NT and Win 2K. The only XP systems I've seen have been on some execs desks and the greeter's desk in the lobby. Once you're past the gate, XP is very rare and Vista is non-existant.
Business environments don't require anti-phishing since the systems can't even get to the Internet. They don't require media stuff, sound cards and such since the users are prohibited form enjoying music on the systems. Very few boxes even have CD drive much less a DVD drive for installation. All that is done over the internal networks.
So, based on that environment, what does Vista bring to the party? Why would my clients want to go to the time, expense and added support issues of upgrading? These are questions M$ has never answered in a business perspective.
Banjo - The more I know about Windoze, the more I love *nix
not always true. where i work we still run 2k on all of the workstations. when my old laptop crapped out a month ago, they gave me a brand-smelled-like-dell's-factory-new laptop. it had a case badge that said designed for XP, it had a cd key on the bottom, and what did it have for an os? 2k
...For the beast had been reborn with its strength renewed, and the followers of Mammon cowered in horror.
Hmm. I don't deal with this. The tech guys have this figured out. But I think Dell has to sell you a computer with an OS because of their deal with MS. Stupid monopoly. So a lot of companies get a DR-DOS computer, then put on their own OS. But then again, it might only apply if you are an Enterprise customer with Dell.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I don't see how the slow adoption of Vista is any different from previous Windows releases
... it allowed you to do more. In contrast, Vista is widely known as a *restricting* O/S ... it makes your machine do what both MS and content providers want, instead of what you want.
It's hugely different now than before.
Even the ordinary man in the street wanted something less flakey than W98, and WinXP offered that missing stability. Enterprise followed suit and for the same reason, except in those places where they had already found the stability through tinkering with Win2000.
In contrast, Vista offers nothing except a few frills, and its stability is very likely to be worse than that of WinXP for a few years. That makes it less than intensely desireable.
But it gets worse. WinXP was an *enabling* O/S
In combination, those two issues make Vista appear as a negative "upgrade", and the slow uptake simply reflects that. Only those people who haven't heard the grumblings of discontent are actually buying it.
I'll tell you why businesses aren't upgrading: there's absolutely no need to.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
The point is that on Slashdot saying something postive about MS is instantly suspect, but saying something postive about Linux isn't.
All things being equal I'd agree with you, but all things aren't equal. MSFT spends millions on PR firms that make their living generating positive "press hits" for their clients. Slashdot readers aren't the only ones justified in being cynical of what they read about MSFT and MSFT products online, including this forum, and in trade magazines.
Not every positive comment about a MSFT product is a PR press hit, but there are enough of those out there we have a right to be cynical. Many of us have been burned enough over the years that MSFT has earned that instant suspicion. If on occasion a genuine positive comment gets tarnished, well that's just too damn bad, isn't it?
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I remember modinng it Troll. Lets see if it comes up on M2
New Corporate machines generally don't have any OS installed at all since under the volume agreements you use your corp licenses / media. That, and machines are imaged anyway, pre-loading all your apps. This fact makes the rest of your post moot.
Last time I saw, RPM was plagued with some architectural problems. It also appears to be very slow. Since I moved to Debian and later to Ubuntu, I came to appreciate the APT package manager.
Maybe there will be some other package manager that can deal with different OSs placing files in different parts of the file-system. Maybe there is.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
I think any responsible IT department will not be rolling out good ol Vista anytime soon. There are just too many incompatibilities and bugs. Microsoft seems to believe, in their infinite wisdom, that everyone is running a Windows based network with only Microsoft software. The problem in the real world is that this just isn't so. SO many companies have backbones that are UNIX/Linux. So many web servers are Apache. Too further grind the point into the ground, so many companies use custom built software. The company I work with is an example of this. We are on a Novell NOS, we use Apache as a web server and Linux for VPN and monitoring. 90% of our apps are custom designed and some of them, that still work like clockwork mind you, were written in assembler. Is Vista gonna support those? Gee I bet not. Also our end users, not all mind you just a select "special" few, tend to be dumber than a box of rocks when it comes computers. They don't need to have something new to confuse their tiny little brains any further. We still run 98 because it works just fine with some users needs. We do run XP though since it meets other users needs. To be honest, if our company had the time and resources we would probably create our own OS since our needs our much different than most. So what advantage does it give to us to have Vista??? We don't need pretty things since they distract the stupid people from doing their job. Us IT folk don't need it and the execs don't need it. Like so many people have said, maybe in 3-7 yrs or as hardware requires, maybe a Vista upgrade is plausible but not now. I do have to comment about the idiot that said it's vendors faults that their apps don't work with Vista. It could be that this happened because unlike Microsoft, some companies are working on new and interesting things instead of rehashing old shit. Comment made. Let the flogging begin.
No, we COULD get a machine with FreeDOS on it. The problem is that it was not the same type of machine. The specs were all different on it. They won't say "You can buy any of our machines with XP, with no OS, with DOS, etc" or even "This is certified to have components to run the following OSes. They tickled our asses with feathers about a deal and then said it would be cheaper to take it with windows licenses. I like cheaper, I just don't like feeding the bottom line of another company, or even contributing to their sales/install base when I have no need for their product nor any plan to use it. The other issue is my company already had corporate XP licenses. WHY should we have to buy them again? That amounts to extortion.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought MS's "corporate volume licenses" required 2 parts:
-A valid OEM or Retail license for a recent version of Windows
PLUS
-A valid Volume license.
Most of them allow you to mix and match (A WinXP Pro OEM license sticker is still kosher to combine with a Win2k volume license). But OEM licenses are non-transferable to new equipment. So unless you have a stack of retail licenses to back up those volume licenses, you still need an OEM sticker on any new equipment you buy. Getting a box with FreeDOS from Dell doesn't entitle you to install Windows.
This time around, however, I wonder if the home users will be as enthusiastic. Why? Generally speaking, Vista is not good news for consumers. For them it means:
- No more illegal software, movies and music.
- Hardware that doesn't work.
- Hardware that suddenly stops working.
- Absurd hardware requirements.
- Poor performance that won't be appealing, especially gamers.
- DRM technology that decreases stability.
- Security that is no better and possibly worse than before.
- High cost.
In light of all this, I believe the advantages of running an alternative operating system, especially Linux, will soon become more apparent to normal PC users than ever before. For example, I know lots of people who have told me they don't need Linux because they've always been able to do everything they wanted with Windows, running loads of illegal software, and never have to pay anything for it -- they love that! Well, if Vista puts an end to all that, and they hear how much is now possible with Linux, and how easy it is to install distros like Ubuntu and Fedora these days, why wouldn't they be more likely to switch, or at least start running dual-boot systems? I think many of them will do exactly that. Who knows: it may actually become cool to run Linux!Bottom line: Vista may be the best thing to happen to Linux in years.
I guess the main question is, when ordering company equipment, when will you no longer be able to purchase them with XP? At a certain point I assume Vista will not just be *A* choice, it will be the ONLY choice.
This has been posted pretty much without change for at least years, I usualy counter it with a rant about saving a download to the WinXP desktop and trying to run as admin, but why bother, soon we'll be able to rag on Vista!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Except for training, migrating to Linux is much less expensive than migrating to Vista. Unlike Vista, Linux will work just fine on your existing hardware. And the training isn't as expensive as most people assume because for the average office worker, all they need to learn is OpenOffice, which is very similar to the MSOffice they're familiar with and Firefox, which (surprise surprise) has a look-and-feel almost the same as IE. That, plus Thunderbird or something similar is all they need.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Which is what everyone says. That shows that you don't know anything about the present-day Linux desktop. Question: what mainstream app is missing from the business computing desktop environment?
Is it:Well, the list goes on. Custom-written software (could work well under emulation unless designed specifically to thwart WINE), IP Telephony (Skype has a Linux client), and so on. My point is that any business that's interested could switch today if they wanted. There's no missing killer app (unless you're trying to make excuses). The roadblocks to migrating entirely to Linux on the business desktop are all artificially created by Microsoft to protect their monopoly. The most difficult part is convincing your users that it's a good choice. They've been brainwashed by years of Microsoft marketing, and believe pretty much every word that comes out of Steve's and Bill's mouths blindly. Many organisations will encounter significant resistance during training as belligerent, brain-washed Microsoft junkies demand that things go back to the way they were. That's unfortunate, because I can finally say after almost 15 years of using Linux, that using a Linux desktop is a joy, not an arduous task that requires command-line hacking to accomplish everything it can do.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
Windows marketshare comes from preloads on new computers.
Computer sales come from dissatisfaction with old computers.
Ergo, Microsoft needs people to hate their old computers. One way to do this is to ship (hint: make it free as in beer) some app that needs an 80-core processor.
Business tries the app, thinks it's too slow, upgrades their hardware, and then implicitly upgrades their OS because it came with the new machine.
So.. what's that app? What needs a processor that a 6-year-old 1 GHz machine is "too slow" for?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Get over it
free means nada support
You can sue M$
You could try and sue RH
And RH knows that
Pay up or shut the fuck up
Oh you think your storm of denial will change the world?
Yeah, and how many years has it been??
Web servers you say?
Like this one?
wooo
In our company we won't even LOOK at a new product, be it MS or any other until patch / service pack 1 is at least half a year old.
And than we just LOOK at it in the sense of looking at other peoples experiences.
Maybe one year after the release we will consider a test installation on some spare box.
...nothing more. The whole point of coining the phrase "Wintel monopoly" was to out the practice of upping hardware demands for the next OS so people have to upgrade. Vista is simply more of the same MO.
A quick perusal of the excellent Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection shows how Vista CPU demands will skyrocket in all ways, at all times, across all devices. Never mind anything else, this is more than enough to force upgrades.
The last time something this blatant happened was WinME turning on drive indexing by default, making Windows 2000 seem like a performance king in head-to-head comparisons.
CPU usage is Microsoft's friend. They don't really need to have people playing HD-DVDs but they see an advantage to themselves and are pursuing it intently.
As for actually playing HD-DVDs on PCs, I think this will not happen. Period. People will very quickly realize it is not workable, or takes too much effort/cost, and they will play their HD-DVDs on their standalone players only. Making the **AA and Microsoft very happy indeed. Microsoft will have found a way to use up 80% of a modern computer's CPU cycles and the **AA will have stamped out the rampant DVD piracy.
I predict the need for premium content removal tools so that hackers can get back the cpu cycles they paid for.
I come here for the love
until lotus wouldn't run?
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=213160&thresho ld=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=17336848
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
If you believe that Linux is ten years behind you either:
A) Just crawled out from under a rock.
B) Are a Microsoft Buttboy who just wants to spread lies.
C) Are a complete moron.
D) All of the above
My biggest problem with Vista is that it comes in 7 Damn Versions. Whatever one I pick it won't be the right one, and in some way won't be completely compatible with someone running one of the other flavors. Linux, at least, comes in one version once you've picked the distro you want. For someone claiming to simplify my life, all MS has managed to do is confuse me. And when I'm confused I don't make decisions, which means I'm not upgrading to Vista any time soon. This certainly cannot be a benefit to MS since I likely speak for millions of others suffering in silence.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
It could also be the fact that any new machines bought to replace dead/broken ones came pre-installed with XP. As more of these cheap machines died or locked up due to virus attacks, as they frequently do, XP gained seats.
How many enterprise environments bother at all with whatever might come pre-loaded on machines? As opposed to using some kind of prebuilt (and tweaked) imaging process...
Just fix your stinkin Windows webserver and stop trolling around.
Thanks.
(Speaking as a computer guy since 1978):
This isn't any different from any other Windows release; the initial complaints about privacy, the obligitory 1+year delay, the initial reports of "corporations holding off from the new version" and complaints all around.
The only way you can get off the merry-go-round is to do it; Linux will be waiting for you, when you realize your personal information is known in Amsterdam, your music stops playing after two weeks, and your brand-new Pentium 5@12Ghz is unbearably slow because you're running programs for that guy with the $.06 bounty on CPUs he can take over.
When you get tired of being used, Homer Simpsons, Linux awaits you.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Yes I'm one of those "Relics" that used VAX..So wot ?
I've been pounding keyboards and circuits since '88, seen digital get in bed with Intel (Alpha research)
and Microsoft (NT Is VAX)...So of course, I have to say a few words....
Vista is so different from all other releases from M$, but if I have to go into a rant why then there's no point.
Our department (read Government) is still on 2000 for stations (thousands) and have migrated to 2003 servers.
And that's the way it's going to be for at least the next five years (yes you read it right).
No one has written up the business case for XP on the workstations yet, but XP it will be, not Vista.
There is a plethora of ways of gaining the slight advantages that Vista promises, without all the heartaches...
There's just no way to read on about Vista without getting down right disgusted at some point....
I'll run it to support the clients I keep after five, but it isn't going to be any pleasure....
I'll keep my Linux/XP/Dos Home office clean of Vista except for one box(legit) and laugh (cry?) every time
it crashes something I've grown used to, or still need. If this is the future of PC computing, then count
Me as one of the nerds going underground.
End of Line.
That, my friend, is nothing new... we were in the same situation when the 80386 arrived.
It's been copied-and-pasted millions of times all the way down to the mistake with the angle bracket. Before the invasion of what I call the "new Slashdot" it would have rightfully been modded down to -1.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
As a software developer for windows, I've encountered several incompatibilities with VISTA.
The most serious of which (the ones that break compatibility with older versions of windows) in my situation are File Association and the inability to write to the software's own directory when using a limited account.
File Association:
The problem here is that for the 5th time, microsoft changed how different file extensions are executed. This time, you have to use a new API (instead of just writing a few registry entries). This basically breaks file association for every application out there that isn't tailor made for VISTA. It would also cause severe compatibility issues with programs that rely on associating their own file formats.
Limited Access:
When using a non-admin account, an application can no longer write files into the directory it resides in. It must write all work-files to a special user-based directory. Again, this breaks backward compatibility for a lot of existing programs.
And another reason why VISTA isn't really all that ready is display drivers. There are a lot of glitches in the new display drivers from both NVIDIA and ATI. Heck, due to the new driver model in VISTA, even the Windows XP drivers have been restructured, introducing new bugs (NVIDIA 9x.xx series for example), which are not being fixed for months.
Zoom Player Lead Dev.
Not at these prices. The licenses are bought in bulk and can be used on equipment for this business.
get VISTA unless they specifical ask for XP.
If they ask for Linux they'll still get the run-around or turned down.
You can thank the Bush DOJ team that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and gave Microsoft a "settlement" with no enforcement teeth and defacto approval for all their past illegal business dealings, and a blank check for continuing those practices under different disguises in the future. Before the trial Microsoft had secret agreements that restricted what OS the PC makers could sell with their computers. After the trial Microsoft "favors" OEMs with ad rebates if they are good little boys, otherwise the ad rebates are denied and the bad boys lose their profits. Different technique, same results: a continuing MS monopoly on the OEM desktops. If the Sherman-Clayton and other laws were enforced MS wouldn't even be alive today, so buggy and insecure is their software. Consumers would have a REAL choice.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Even for a top of the line enterprise Unix , it takes a yr or so before big customers seriously upgrade. Windows is much more buggy and will take its time. If customers want to upgrade, that is. The outcome will be clear after a few months. Personally, I don't think many customers will jump to Vista from XP.
... about other problems that might occur during the installation http://www.geek-happens.com/p/EN/files/vista-probl ems.html
F.Oxygen
IT IS FRIGGIN BLOATED.
i tried a beta of it, and it was using like 600MB of ram when IDLE.
businesses aren't gonna shell out a shit load of cash on new comps just so they can run a new OS.
Just because someone reports a positive Microsoft experience - - that cannot be right!! They must be a dupe, shill or paid off to be so stupid.
Six years ago, I was dumb enough to trust a slew of shill reports about XP. They said that M$ finally did something right and that XP was "stable". It was bullshit, just like the bullshit surrounding Windows 98 and 95 before it. When something goes against a long history of let downs, of course it's suspect. I no more believe that Vista will be any more worth running than XP is. It's software that does not meet my needs and never will.
Microsoft stability has been about the same since Windoze 3.1, which was a step down from DOS. The user interface, except for a few meaningless but confusing changes, remained about the same as well. Because I had seen people watch movies and do voice over IP communications all the way back in Win 3.1, I never saw any increase in functionality, ever. The world of Windows has been a constant struggle to keep hardware up to the ever more bloated software, against viruses and worms, to master confusing new controls all to maintain ability that other software invented or matched years ago.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
From http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/docs/HOWTO/Advoca cy
Windows makes a sucky web server. Unfortunately, to do the same programming that I did on my Windows box is a lot more complicated on a Unix box. Still not sure what I'm gonna do...
Vista seems to be incompatible with my Linux desktop too. Now I have to explain that my Linux desktop is compatible with all older microsoft products, but not Vista (somehow they made Linux incompatible again). I will wait and continue to use my Linux (which is at present compatible with everything except vista), instead of switching to vista (which at present is compatible with all versions of vista).
I wish MS would go back to the old system of adding ones after their version number for each release. Then, by the time of the consumer rollout we could be enjoying Vista Revision 1 Version 3.111111111111111 and rejoicing at knowing they gave us enough 'features' to require only two more revisions and an endless stream of patches, culminating in the day they need scientific notation to fit their product number on the box.
I was a Notes client admininistrator for a worldwide Evironmental Engineering company that bought a competitor out that had a large Notes footprint in place and it was decidedly better than Groupwise (which we were sadly stuck with) and Exchange (which another subsidary had)
.... and wasn't fixed until SP6a came out or you added local admin rights.
I remember when Microsoft came out with NT 4.0 SP6 which borked Notes 5. It would only work post SP6 if end user had local admin rights
Gerstner: Bill, WTF did you do to my collaborative software? It doesn't work with that new service pack you released. My support lines are overwhelmed with NT Workstation admins who says Notes doesn't work SP6.
Gates: Sorry Lou, works fine with Exchange 5.5
Gerstner: Don't you do any QA regression testing?
Gates: Works fine with Exchange 5.5
Gerstner: (exasperated): FIX THIS SHIT!
Gates: When you become my bitch (mentally notes conversation for the future exploitation and releases SP6a seven days later)
And funny that, Notes doesn't work with Vista. I suppose Vista SP1 or a Notes client point release will be needed to get it to work.
So glad I never need to deal with Blotus Notes ever again... - ponders how many former *** Corporation admins are reading this and saying the exact same thing.
The Cisco VPN client has been supported since November 22nd with an updated version on December 11th. Version 4.8.01.0590 is the latest Beta. It may be Beta but it has worked fine for me for the past two months....
copy/paste troll notwithstanding, it does make a point. and i'm saying this as a guy who has spent the last month trying to make my modem work with Linux.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
No, that's the problem with Microsoft. Almost every pc comes pre-installed with Windows. It's not always possible to order a pc without it. So companies are paying twice(!) for their OS. This is also referred as the Microsoft Tax.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
this article tries to explain why you shouldn't go from XP to Vista.
I don't know about the other items in the list, but I'm using Lotus Notes and Cisco VPN (I concede the vpn client is a beta, but notes is not) with no problems...have been since I got rc1 a few months ago...
Eww, why wouldn't they at least upgrade to something that is, you know, supported. Like windows 2000?
You are a liar, there for you are lying. You see how the point (you are lying) is being supported by a general statement about the kind of person you are? That is an ad-hominem attack.
What I did was said:
You are lying, there for you are a liar. I then supported my statement of you lying with factual testable evidence. You see how a judgement of your character is the conclusion to the statement of fact, as opposed to the other way around? That means it is not an ad-hominem attack. Of course, I really didn't even go that far. I gave several different reasons why you would state things that are factually untrue. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and said that perhaps someone else, out of malice or incompetence decived you, and that you are simply repeating an untruth.
Of course if you would like to discuss logical fallacies, here is a little gem from your post:
To be honest, I dont care whether you think I am lying about these things or not. Acerbic responses will not get you very far in the world...
This is an actual ad-hominem attack. You are trying to imply that your point is correct by attacking me personally.
That doesn't even go into this:
"Reply with Internet-Style History" is a complete joke as it is implemented very poorly in Lotus Notes. Some of these folks use this scheme; however, it does not even bother to multiple-indent emails earlier in the thread. So how are you supposed to carry on a inline-response conversation with someone who uses the standard "Internet-style" indentation found in Outlook, Thunderbird, Eudora, mutt, et al???
Which is you just restating the lie you previously told in an attempt to spread FUD. Here is a sample of what Notes thinks is "Internet-style" responses.:
Oh, look at that. Multiple indents, and in-line comments! So, were you intentionally lying, or did someone else deceive you through malice or incompetence? And will you stand up and admit that you were spreading FUD, as clearly if this "technical consulting group" really does exist, and they are working with Notes on a regular bases, then my early statement concerning malice or incompetence is supported by the facts.
On the release date of Vista, I took a personal vow to move to a linux distro. I have tried a few so far and am going to try several others to see which I like most. So-far so good and I am very impressed with ease of use and functionality of all of them (kubuntu, debian, slax, Linux6, etc) and this ending comment, I think is pig-headed. "Once Vista is being shipped by OEMs on all new PCs, we won't be debating why people should move," said Andrew Brust, chief of new technology with consulting firm TwentySix New York. "It will be clear that they will need to do so, sooner or later. And honestly, people can argue until they're blue in the face about how XP is fine, but the reality is that it's five years old, technology has changed and a new OS is necessary." *I still run Win98 for some family members...and it runs great. I still run Win2kPro at home cause it's solid. I run many Win2kServer's again cause it's solid. I run WinXP cause it's got other features I like and need. I have no love for Vista so I predict it will be the next Windows ME!