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.
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?"
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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!
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?
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
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.®
Exactly. I've been running the Cisco VPN Client for Vista now for two months. Works fine.
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.
It's funny, people were saying the same thing about XP versus 2000 until MS refused to patch 2000 a few years ago. I've used Vista, and it is faster than my 1 year old installation of XP. XP has a nasty habit of getting fucked over time. My machine is fairly mid-range these days.
As for the software versions - christ, 5 versions aren't enough for you? Whatever.
work with 4 year-old equipment, processors, memory, etc.
MS has NEVER released a major release OS that did this. In 1991, many computers still shipped with 1 or 2 megs of ram. Windows 95 was certainly not designed for this. In 1997, most computers shipped with 32 megs of ram, totally insufficient to run windows XP. Especially when today, there is new stuff that really can change the computing experience - dual core processors make multithreading really functional, hybrid hard drives will revolutionize laptop usage, modern graphics cards can really improve the desktop experience - why would MS give a shit about what was happening 4 years ago?
be compatable with SW from the same time frame
Name one major program released in the last 4 years that will not run on Vista.
come in 2, maybe 3 levels of implementation (excluding servers)
Home - Price point under $70
Professional - Price point under $120
Extra (maybe - Price point under $150
MS has kept almost the same pricing structure for ages. You pulled these prices out of your ass.
Upgradeable from one level to the next without a complete reinstall
I'm not quite sure why this would matter.
Beyond basic OS, all extras, funky new desktops, including browser, media player, text pads, etc. are optional installs.
Much of this is optional. You obviously haven't installed it.
And, allow me to virtualize it, dammit!
Only the home edition doesn't allow virtualization. 99% of people using virtualization use it for development or business purposes, so this does sort of make sense. By the business or ultimate edition.
Oh, and give it a name that doesn't blow, or suck.
It doesn't suck as much as you! Vista is a cool name. I like it!
I don't read or respond to AC posts
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.
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!
MS-DOS 4.0 wasn't even a Microsoft product, it was developed at IBM and rebadged.
/F switch to FORMAT, and the DOS Shell, and the latter was also a steaming pile of dung. (From my experience I can tell you Start Programs is not all that different from IBM's FIDO shell of 5 years earlier, in terms of how it worked - just with a little more spit and polish.)
That said, yes, it was a steaming pile of dung, and about the only documented features it had over 3.3 were large disk support (which Compaq MS-DOS 3.31 had too), the
Then there were the undocumented features. Oy.
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
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."
Windows ain't done, 'til Lotus won't run!
Vip
Outlook Web Access under IE7 requires a patch on the OWA web server so that the ActiveX control works in the new browser's security settings. Otherwise, the user cannot edit or write new mail messages.
Firefox under Vista works fine (in Basic mode, of course), as does any other web browser.
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
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.
"Perhaps someone who's posting a piece on how they've had no trouble installing/running Vista has their own agenda?"
Perhaps someone who's posting a piece on how they've had no trouble installing/running Linux has their own agenda as well. Or not.
The point is that on Slashdot saying something postive about MS is instantly suspect, but saying something postive about Linux isn't.
This is disappointing because nerds are supposed to be about logic and critical/scientific thinking, but we can be as blind as the worst sports fans when it comes to our sacred choices of technologies.
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.
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?
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,
This site has a picture of Bill Gates as the Borg. When did you think this site was ever not biased? I've been with Slashdot for a long time, and I have noticed that within the past year or so there was a SHARP increase in people who pro-Microsoft. It should be surprising when people constantly bash open source and promote Windows on Slashdot, since Slashdot IS a pro-open source anti-Microsoft news site. And yes, it is very suspicious, since Microsoft has already been busted astroturfing Digg.
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
It's pretty easy to do. If you want, you can try it by setting up a virtual machine using VMWare (so you can roll it back later).
First, you install Windows, say XP SP1, and leave it in its default state. Then you fire up IE and navigate around to some pages. Preferably seedy ones. Googling "free porn," "warez," or "serial numbers" ought to do it. Then when you see some incomprehensible message about an ActiveX control, click OK. Congratulations, you've probably got yourself some spyware or a rootkit. This is pretty much the guaranteed way; if you surf around long enough, you can probably find sites that use vulnerabilities in IE to bypass the "click OK" step -- for so-called "drive-by downloading" and arbitrary code execution. Here's a list of the most popular exploitware. Older versions of IE are particularly vulnerable, so basically surfing using any machine that hasn't been patched is a ticket to rootville. And unfortunately, many people would rather just start surfing than update their computer's security patches first.
Alternately, you can just plug an unpatched pre-SP2 box directly into a broadband connection (as in, without a router or firewall in the way) and leave it there for a while; that should get you something. This is somewhat harder to do with SP2, since it has a firewall turned on by default and fewer services running.
The net result is that many people who have older machines get compromised and can't fix them, either because they don't have re-install/recovery media, or because they haven't backed up their data, so the problem just gets worse until the computer is unusably infested. Then they get a new machine, with a new version of Windows, and for a short time it's more secure (because it'll probably be SP2). After a few months or years of neglect, though, it's the same pattern over again.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
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
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.
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!
...or 'Crack for VISTA ULTIMATE', ironically.