Slashdot Mirror


Vista at Risk of Being Bypassed by Businesses

narramissic writes "With Windows 7 due in late 2009 or 2010, many businesses may choose to wait it out rather than make the switch to Vista. According to some analysts, Vista uptake at this point really depends on how good Vista SP1 (due in Q1, 2008) is. If it doesn't smooth over all the problems, companies are much more likely to stick with XP. And that holds especially true for those businesses that follow the every-other-release rule." Note for Microsoft: Allow us to natively disable trackpads.

30 of 729 comments (clear)

  1. and then.... by acvh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    they'll hold off on switching to Windows 7 until SP1 hits.

    Maybe this whole "upgrade the OS" thing isn't such a good business plan after all?

    1. Re:and then.... by Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe if they did it well, it might pay off. Windows XP is ancient. For a release, it is very old. They missed on the upgrade the OS thing poorly with Vista. Many are moving on to Apple or Linux instead.

      Silly question, but why upgrade all the time anyway? If something works, why replace it? What's going to come out that will magically increase productivity?

    2. Re:and then.... by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Many are moving on to Apple or Linux instead.

      Citation needed.

      I think many people are staying with Windows XP because their computers are good enough. And that doesn't translate to throwing out their entire machine and spending loads on a Mac.

      Hell, I'm still on Windows 2000, works fine for me!

      And the only reason Vista nags so much, is because people (presumably Mac users) slagged off XP so much for not asking you, and said how OS X was better because you had to enter your password to do such things. So that's who we have to thank for that!

    3. Re:and then.... by hdparm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Silly question, but why upgrade all the time anyway?

      Microsoft does this with updates. Sometimes it's sensible to EOL a product (stop releasing bug/security fixes), usually when the new one, supposedly better, is released. They did this with Win2K just before the Vista was out but they had XP to lean on. Then, they were to EOL XP, too - just to boost Vista sales. Not going to work, though - Vista is bad for business. There are too many issues with it - confusing licensing model, bad hardware support, bad apps support, you name it.

      This time around businesses might just hold onto XP until new Windows is released and it proves to be an improvement over XP.

      Microsoft is not as strong in a desktop area as it used to be, after all the goodness coming out of Linux distros and Apple. If they try to be tough and EOL XP while Vista is the only MS alternative, it'll be like trowing a chair in their own face.

    4. Re:and then.... by Technician · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Am I understanding this right? You installed Java on your Vista box and when it caused a problem, you blamed Vista?

      Short answer YES. Java needed permission. Vista stopped the other running application cold to ask permission.

      Asking permission with a notification icon is one thing on a dual monitor set up. Stopping the running movie is not acceptable behavior.

      It is like having your engine in the car shut off because the passanger removed the seatbelt. Pardon me, but isn't the light on the dash enough?

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
    5. Re:and then.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > One word: Support

      You mean, "I get to call someone in Delhi, who will walk me through the script, and tell me to reinstall Windows if my problem isn't on the script?"

      Fuck that.

      We joke a lot about bit rot around here. It's applicable to frequently-updated development environments, where it might matter which version of which DLL you're using.

      (Warning, I feel a rant coming on! I'm not flaming you, I'm flaming a certain dipshit who'll probably never read this, because it's been that kind of a weekend for me.)

      In a production system, bits don't rot. The only bits that rot are the ones fucked with by dipshits who think that having "support" is so important that it's worth upgrading part of a production system without checking to see if the fucking latest version of foo-are will work with the currently-installed versions of bar-ware, baz-ware, and quux-ware.

      Bits don't rot. The production system I was speaking of worked fine for five years, and it would have worked for another five years had I not been ordered to fuck with it. (Hard drive failure? No problem, the point of being a production system is that it's static, so we'll just load it off a drive image.! Hardware failure in 2012 and you can't reinstall the old OS on it? That's what virtual machines are for! We don't need to fucking upgrade just because some douchebag in a suit says that the old version isn't "supported". We've never fucking had to call support for the old version of the product, because it actually fucking worked!)

      CAPTCHA: "coffee". Heh. I've had one too many, I guess, but at least I feel better now :)

    6. Re:and then.... by Volante3192 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If there's enough pressure from big companies, it'd be stupid for MS to cut off support. But even then, there's little that one *really* needs MS for if you have a good backup behind ya. Just get a non-paper MCSE and you're gold. (Admittedly, they're probably harder to find than decent Linux admins, but they do exist.)

    7. Re:and then.... by irc.goatse.cx+troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because the definition of "works" changes all the time as well.

      5 years ago I would have told you a 800x600 15" display works. Try upgrading to a 1600x1200 20", or better yet 20" 1600x1200 next to another monitor for dual monitor use. This also works, and works so much better that once you adapt to the new possibilities, the old way no longer 'works'.

      Same with internet connectivity. Disk space. Etc.

      Admittedly hardware, but you could say the same thing about some revolutionary software breakthroughs; Protected memory, fair scheduling, good filesystems, network filesystems, etc.

      Ideally what you have now will always work for what you do now, but will limit you in what you can do in the future. You have to update what you have to update what you can then grow to do.

      The trick is to weight he risks. If theres no noticable improvement, upgrade somewhere that isn't expected to be stable first. Test your updates. Make sure nothing breaks before you roll them out.

      --
      Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
    8. Re:and then.... by Almahtar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's going to come out that will magically increase productivity? Virtual desktops, revision control built into the file system, dedicated swap partitions (ever gotten a fragmented swap file in windows? Sucks ASS!), support for remote file systems for every application (via SSHFS or SambaFS) so you can hit "save" in your text editor and it saves the file on your web server... seriously I could go on for quite a while, and I'm not even including Apple's advancements here, just Linux desktops. Throw expose (or 'scale' in Linux) the like in there and you have a world of difference.

      I've gotten so spoiled with Linux desktop environments that I feel constricted and frustrated when I'm forced to use Windows. It makes a very noticeable difference. Browsing the web and something reminds you that you need to do task X, but you don't want to forget what you're doing now? Switch to a new desktop and do it, then switch back and everything is how you left it.

      You needs may differ from mine, but I can tell you there are plenty of ways to "magically" increase productivity by switching operating systems for a lot of people.
  2. WIndows 7 - better? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Truth is, while holding off Vista might be an idea, what guarantee is there that Windows 7 will be any better. In many ways Vista seems to be a symptom of a failed development process, bad priorities and not understanding their users. When you have five years to developer a product and this is what you get, something is wrong.

    Vista is not a total failure, but its not a success either.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:WIndows 7 - better? by Wingsy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      By then? What about right this minute?

      --
      If I didn't have absolutely NOTHING to do, I wouldn't be here.
  3. vista system hog by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing that bugs me the most is the additional system resources it hogs - i buy a pc to run applications not run an OS. look at anything that runs both vista an xp and xp always has lower requirments. MS would win a lot of fans if they made OS releases they used the same or less resources instead of massive bloatware, or atleast show SOMETHING useful that's hogging the additional memory and CPU time.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:vista system hog by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The thing that bugs me the most is the additional system resources it hogs - i buy a pc to run applications not run an OS. Actually I'm pretty happy about it -- what now gets sold as the cheap bottom level spec PCs are actually very fast with Linux. The extra resources that Vista hogs has helped drag down hardware costs on an economy of scale basis (because now every machine needs at least 1GB of RAM etc.). As long as you don't use Vista that just means a free performance boost when you buy a new PC. I've certainly enjoyed it.
  4. Re:What is so bad about Vista? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It makes the hardware look old.

  5. The problem with waiting for MS by Coryoth · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At first glance this doesn't appear that bad for Microsoft -- so businesses wait, and then buy a different product from Microsoft; it delays income, but isn't that bad. The problem for Microsoft here is that it gives desktop linux an extra year or two to keep improving. The reality is that Linux on the desktop, whethr you consider it "ready" yet or not, has been improving at a far faster rate than Windows has. Just compare Windows98 and the contemporary releases of Linux (around Redhat 5.2 I think, back when they were still using Afterstep as the default environment) and then compare Vista to Ubuntu 7.10: any gaps have narrowed dramatically. Give linux another couple of years to make comparative gains and things may look inteesting when it comes time for businesses to look at OS upgrades -- do you move to Windows 7, or Linux? Both will probably represent almost equally large changes and require as much retraining as each other, and by that point Linux may well be a very good desktop option. Combine that with the fact that Linux (via wine) might actually be as good as Windows 7 at running your old win32 software (given Vistas difficulties with such things) and Microsoft may have a potential revolt on their hands.

    The simple reality is tht, once you all out of step on the treadmill, then working to stay on it doesn't continue to look as attractive as it used to. Lock in is quite important to Microsoft's business model, and failing to keep businesses in step with current MS trends is actually quite a serious potential problem brewing.

    1. Re:The problem with waiting for MS by AsmordeanX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Linux as it is now will NEVER be any sort of viable replacement to Windows. The biggest problem Linux has is its lack of a central authority. There are too many distributions with low standardization.

      Linux could most certainly power a strong desktop client but with the direction it has at the moment and always has had that won't happen.

      Not to mention that my PC at home running Vista will run any Windows application you throw at it. You claim of "Vistas difficulties with such things" seems a bit unfounded to me. I agree that you sometimes might have to drop into emulation mode which should be transparent to the user and therefore needs some attention. However, I have yet to find any app that won't work on Vista.

    2. Re:The problem with waiting for MS by Javaman59 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The reality is that Linux on the desktop, whethr you consider it "ready" yet or not, has been improving at a far faster rate than Windows has. Just compare Windows98 and the contemporary releases of Linux (around Redhat 5.2 I think...
      That's been my experience with Linux and Windows. Back in 1998 colleagues were telling me that Linux is great, and can do everything Windows can. So I took a look (at RedHat 5.2 actually) and saw their default desktop, Afterstep, and thought "what a joke!". At the time I was using Windows NT at work, and it just ran beautifully, in stark contrast to Linux, which couldn't do anything without a lot tweaking. Since then, I've tried Linux from time to time, and noticed the gap closing rapidly, and wha'ts more, the things the Linux has always done better (the command line, open standards, loads of free software, etc..) it still does better. I personally have no intention of handing over hundred's of dollars for Vista, ie. I'm getting off the treadmill, and now might be the time when businesses start doing that as well. The main problem will be legacy applications.
      --
      I'm a software visionary. I don't code.
  6. Re:too late, too early, too in-between ... by BlueParrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or maybe, just maybe, Microsoft released an unfinished operating system, which was a spectacular failure, and now everybody is trying to avoid paying a huge chunk of cash because there is a good chance Microsoft will try to wipe the problems under the carpet and get something better out ASAP.

    Or in other words:
    Vista is the new Millenium.

  7. At what point does Vista join Win ME? by PingXao · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IIRC Windows ME was a bust right out of the gate. We have seen some grudging indications from MS that Vista (aka Windows ME II) isn;t meeting the expectations they had for it in terms of adoption and implementation. How long until people say, "Yep, Vista sure was a bust!"? Maybe MS will never say it, but what will it take to convince the popular press and cheerleader factions that Vista, in fact, was a horrible OS?

    The cynic in me says it doesn't matter because the DRM core of the OS will never get the criticism it deserves and, thus, any follow-on OS will be just as bad. No OS that manages someone else's rights without giving a hoot for mine will ever run on my hardware.

  8. Re:What is so bad about Vista? by tsa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So does Leopard, and do you hear people whine about that? OSX is a memory hog too.

    --

    -- Cheers!

  9. The vista push by grasshoppa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Organizations don't want to install vista. Check. What makes us think the successor to Vista will be recieved any better?

    Instead, the real danger to MS is a push to thin clients. I've heard rumblings lately, and if the next OS dissappoints like vista, you can expect huge deployments of thin clients coming. I know it would make more financial sense for my location when time comes to upgrade from XP to go with thin clients chatting with a windows terminal server. There is risk involved with this step, but if we see another crappy OS come out, it will be the justification I need to validate the switch over.

    Just my thoughts on the matter.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  10. Re:Linux by leenks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you underestimate what most people do on their PCs, especially at work. Most business PCs run many proprietary pieces of software that will only work properly on Windows. Admittedly, this could be solved with Citrix / WTS but it involves lots of business change (plus served apps generally blow for general usability, especially when the network gets busy).

  11. We are going to wait.... by BulletMagnet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As the IT Manager for a medium sized regional construction company, I've played with Vista for a year and frankly, I get frustrated with it - and if I do, I can't imagine how my userbase which has computer savy ranging from "I have servers at home too!" to "How do I turn this on again?" and there's no sense overburdening one's self with a massive amount of support calls with the lesser skilled people fighting with Vista's UI and all the other traps in the OS itself. (Hey, these people build buildings for a living, they shouldn't need to fight the OS on their laptops)

    Vista might not be the utter stinking turd that ME was but it's a painful bowel movement nonetheless.

    Here's to hoping Microsoft gets on the clue bus with Windows 7...

  12. Re:too late, too early, too in-between ... by ReeceTarbert · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That "spectacular failure" is selling about 300,000 copies per day.
    Only because it (normally) comes preinstalled in every new PC and the average user doesn't know there are alternatives -- or couldn't care less about them.

    In other words: every OS could boast the same sale figures... if it came preinstalled in every PC.


    RT
    --
    Your Bookmarks. Anywhere. Anytime.

  13. Re:Better question... by jo42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    you can turn off the bloated eye candy When you do that on XP, it looks like Win2K - which is perfectly fine.

    When you do that on Vista, it looks like total utter crap - which is not fine.

    So, would you rather use something that looks perfectly fine or total utter crap?
  14. OS X eye candy is useful by alexhmit01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It may not seem it to Linux users, but the eye candy that Apple added generally gives you visual clues to what is going on. When I minimize a window it graphically collapses to the Dock, that's useful, because without thinking about it, I watched it drop down and keep track of it. When I switch between users, the graphical rotation visually lets me know that I've done something substantial. It breaks the visual space the way I've visually broken up the process.

    It subconsciously gives me information and it useful.

    The eye candy on my XP desktop at work is not useful, is mostly annoying, and doesn't help me understand my environment. That's a HUGE difference.

  15. Re:It's probably a good thing they didn't.... by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The early versions of Linux were definitely for the tech savvy only. Driver support was lousy and you usually spent a lot of time on the command line getting yourself going. That's not something Joe Schmoe is going to want to do on his own.

    It's not just tech savvy. It's tech savvy and masochistic. Just because I have plenty of experience editing configuration files, compiling code or writing/debugging device drivers from the hardware spec, that doesn't mean I want to spend my valuable free time doing it just to be able to use basic applications.

    --
    If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
  16. Speaking of business plans by Rabid+Cougar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm astonished that I have yet to see the best reason not to roll out Vista in a business environment mentioned. The answer is quite simple.

    Vista kills productivity, yet offers no real value in return.

    In order to run Vista where I work, we would have to replace every single machine we have. That's over 100 desktops and laptops--not cheap. Granted, some of those computers need to be replaced, but that's beside the point. Even crappy P4, 1GHZ, 256MB RAM, on-board video computers run XP better than a brand new Dell laptop with 2GB RAM and a 256MB video card runs Vista (it was running Vista Business Premium). Why in the @#$%! should we pay a boatload of money to slash our workers' productivity? As far as I can see, there is absolutely no business case for Vista whatsoever. Until such a day as there is, then you can bet your bottom dollar I won't allow a move to Vista to kill ours.

    Granted, from a technological standpoint, Vista is crap. But that's not the argument to make to your superiors when opposing it. Show them how it will hurt your bottom line. That'll get their attention.

    --
    This isn't the sig you're looking for...
    1. Re:Speaking of business plans by No-op · · Score: 4, Insightful

      thank you for finally saying this - I've been reading comments on this sort of thread for a while waiting for a reasonable person to explain this to the kiddies.

      All technology aside, replacing the entire look'n'feel for our user base (office 2007 + Vista) would be a huge productivity killer for months, with no benefit whatsoever.

      I'd like to have some better feature support, and I know that Vista has some sort of "corporate desktop theme", but the training overhead just kills me every time I think about it.

      Now from a tech perspective - I can buy a brand new core 2 duo based desktop that will run XP at light speed, or stick them with a slow and bloated vista install... I'm personally inclined to skip vista and use what is "known" by our user base.

      Does it bother me that we're rolling out new machines with an OS from 2001? yes. yes it does. but Vista isn't a solution in any way, shape, or form.

      --
      EOM
  17. Was Microsoft joking? by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, in reading this article, I have just been enlightened. I realize that all this time, I was confused because I didn't understand the purpose of Windows Vista. You see, I thought it was Microsoft's way of making a really, really funny joke. I mean, what else could Vista possibly be? Let's examine Vista and see why this is so:

    • Every other button you push, the entire screen goes black and it asks you, "Did you really push that button?"
    • The system is so excruciatingly slow that even on the newest hardware, it is much, much slower than XP on much older hardware.
    • Boatloads of drivers and applications that worked fine under XP do not function under Vista. The result is that things like printers that were supported just fine under XP do not work under Vista. The result is that you have to throw away your perfectly good printer or whatever, and get a new one, as if having just bought a brand new computer and dropping a ton of money on Vista Ultimate isn't enough of an expense.
    • The Vista installer takes F*O*R*E*V*E*R to load, and then gleefully tells you that Windows Vista "saves you time," as if to demonstrate that if the installer is this slow, wait 'till you experience the operating system!
    • The colors chosen for the Vista desktop and windows are such an eyesore that even their own mother couldn't possibly like them. I'd like to know what the graphic designers were smoking, because I want some.
    • There are not one or two but six different versions of Vista. Do they suddenly think they're in the Linux business because it seems they want to scream out, "We're just like Linux; we have too many distros to choose from too!" (Well, I think someone mentioned that RMS wanted Vista to be called GNU/Vista or something like that.)
    • Even if you're an expert XP user, you have to completely relearn how to use a computer when you downgrade to Vista, because everything is so significantly different that you'll have a field day just figuring out how to move a file from one place to another.
    So, I mean, what else but a really funny joke could this be? A product?

    But having read this story, I now understand that there are actually people who worked on this Vista thing who believed that they were making a serious software product. The only thing I can think to say is that this is a tremendous shame. I mean, Windows XP can do pretty much anything that a business might need. All they had to do was spend the last five years or so perfecting XP, ironing out all the bugs, cleaning it up as much as they could, optimizing it for better performance, tightening up security, etc. That would have given them a very solid product with which to compete. Instead, they wasted all this effort, time, and money making a product so embarrassingly slow and bloated, even on the newest hardware, that many businesses are avoiding it like the plague. I'm sorry but I really think that Vista is an enormous flop, even if Microsoft is successful in selling millions of copies. The point is that Vista is actually a very good advertisement for Apple Macs with Mac OS X, and for Linux and the *BSDs.

    Their motto used to be "Where do you want to go today?" I don't know about you, but as my sig and journal both say, Microsoft released Vista, so I went to an Apple retail store and bought a Mac.

    Ok. No email about the world's finest software company is complete without a remark that calls for chairs to be thrown... but I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.