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.
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?
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.
What's this about? Anyone want to clue me in?
I always mod up spelling trolls.
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....
It's not as if spectacularly better alternatives don't exist.
you had me at #!
Windows 7 VMing of all Unsigned code is bigger trun off and will likely brake alot more apps and drivers then what vista broke.
The VMing sound like a good idea but knowing MS they will just find a way to mess up or drive ram and cpu use for it to very high levels.
Also one VM per app will not work that well.
So, they already waited for Longhorn, which cratered. There's a very slow uptake of the 1 1/2 year rush-job that they called "vista", and now businesses are expected to wait for another MS development cycle of indeterminate duration?
I really don't know why MSFT's shareholders haven't lynched Ballmer by now.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Be on time? Of course not.
Will it be full of anti-user software and self-disabling drivers? Absolutely.
Im just about fed up with Microsoft.
Im used to the music and video companies treating customers like criminals, but MS with their remote computer deactivation garbage sets them far over the line. As far as I'm concerned, Im going Ubuntu and Debian.
BTW, Ubuntu likes my new T61 thinkpad. And IBM/Lenovo is Linux friendly.
It makes the hardware look old.
Here is what the cybermen would say about windows Vista.
DEELEEEEEEEETE!
TSS
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.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
What relibility issues should I be seeing and in what way is it a pain in the ass? I must be doing something wrong because my copy of Vista doesn't exhibit any of the things you speak of.
For example, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) is moving to Windows Vista on all their workstations in 2008, even though they don't NEED it. Part of this is due to a federal mandate, and part of it is because Microsoft has it as part of their service agreement. Service pack 1 for Windows Vista has nothing to do with the USCG's standard workstation operating system policy.
Just because you get modded "insightful" on Slashdot doesn't mean you actually are in real life.
M$ need to move corporate keys back to XP system.
Businesses do not like the idea that there vista system must call in to M$ to check there key from time to time or go in to limited functionality mode or use a key sever that calls in to M$ and systems can also go in to limited functionality mode if the sever / network goes down.
And if vista starts to gain more ground this may end become a big problem that limited testing be for a big roll is something that you may not run in to at that time and you may have to hope for a fast fix it your key gets blacklisted by mistake and most of your systems go in to limited functionality mode.
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.
If Vista was 3 years late, why would anyone trust Microsoft's projections now? If "Windows 7" is going to hit in 2009, that's probably going to mean 2012 or 2011 at best.
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.
I think you'll see a lot more switching to Linux. Anyone who hasn't tried Linux is probably in for a shock when they do. They'll be kicking themselves for not trying it sooner.
Linux is good. Damn good. For most people it will do everything they could ever want to do and more.
True, there are a few apps that won't run under Crossover or Wine and you have to run under Windows. But the OpenOffice suite is great... and free. Browsing and e-mail are wonderful. The whole multiple desktop thing makes working on multiple applications at once easy and productive. Probably that in itself is the biggest thing I miss whenever I have to do anything on a Windows box.
But again, anyone that hasn't at least tried Linux owes it to themselves to download a "live" CD image so they can try it out without disturbing their Windows installation at all. Just boot from the live CD and check it out. You might even have fun and discover a whole new world and certainly at a lot lower cost (i.e. 100% free) than you would ever spend on Windows and Office.
So does Leopard, and do you hear people whine about that? OSX is a memory hog too.
-- Cheers!
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!
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).
At my company, we don't have a single Windows machine in sight. Do we miss it? Not at all. Our desktops are all macs, our workstations Linux, our servers are Linux and FreeBSD. After having worked at several companies that used Windows extensively, I can say I have no desire to ever go back to an environment like that. OS X and Linux are just so much more flexible, and have far less management overhead than any Windows environment.
As the Microsoft bloatware continues to sink into a morass of wasted processor cycles, the performance gap with Linux and Macintosh provides a great impetus to the adoption of Unix systems. The funny thing is that it used to be the other way around. Back in the 1980s, MS DOS and Win3.1 was touted as 'more efficient' than Unix systems.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Let's see--
0. DRM throughout the system.
1. If a dialog box pops up, you can't move or resize the parent window. WHY ISN'T THIS FIXED YET?
2. It's slow and bloated, even on modern hardware.
3. Its user interface is inconsistent. (OK, KDE and Gnome are pretty bad this way, too, but OS-X isn't, for instance.)
4. DRM.
5. Intrusive security model.
6. Requires re-training of end-users, which is expensive. (Had to add this one, as it's always used as a "reason" to not move to Linux or OpenOffice.)
7. Invasive anti-piracy model.
8. DRM.
9. No compelling reason to upgrade from XP.
As you can see, there are lots of reasons MS-Windows Vista is not good, even on modern hardware. However, if it floats your boat, continue using it.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
...all the hardware comes, OEM, with Vista. At my current business, we are constantly delayed by having to order the downgrade back to XP professional.
You haven't used Leopard then. Leopard = Vista. Both require at least 1.5GB of RAM to run with useful applications. Both require fairly fast hardware. Vista and Leopard don't run on 5 year old laptops at all. Apple's tradition of making it faster isn't true here. There are countless bugs in Leopard. The firewall is actually worse than Microsoft's now. Software applications were broken on both platforms. I actually prefer vista to leopard. I've used Leopard on a 3 month old iMac, a Mac Pro bought in February, and iBook and a PowerMac G4. It's slow on all of these. The Mac Pro shipped with 1GB of RAM which is the problem on that unit.
Apple and Microsoft think a lot alike these days. My pre-order Leopard disk was damaged and after an hour on the phone with Apple, I was sent to the nearest Apple store who bitched me out for not having a receipt. Now consider that they only give you a packing slip with the shipment and my Mac would not boot to print it! I didn't notice it right away and skipped the disc check the first time. I realize that part is my fault but I didn't appreciate the terrible customer service from the Briarwood Apple store (Ann Arbor, MI).
At work we've decided not to upgrade to Leopard until Parallels actually works with it and we can buy more RAM. We have labs full of iMacs bought over the summer!
Lastly, the advantage with OS X in the past was the control over hardware. Do you really think OS X would run well on a beater Dell? I don't.
The failure with vista was the marketing. Microsoft can't come up with one reason to get people to upgrade. Perhaps if they only shipped x64 vista it might have been an incentive for some. It worked with Windows 95. Most people are running 32bit vista. I've been using it since January and it's not too bad for a new Windows release. You must feed it RAM, but that's true of Macs or some of the bigger Linux distros too.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
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...
In other words: every OS could boast the same sale figures... if it came preinstalled in every PC.
RT
--
Your Bookmarks. Anywhere. Anytime.
A 1-gigahertz desktop running Windows XP with ECC memory meets the needs of most businesses. They had a genuine need to upgrade from the MS-DOS-based operating systems (OSes) like Windows 98 when Windows XP was launched. The former is just too unreliable, but the latter approached Linux-level reliability.
Going from Windows XP to Vista does not buy you a quantum leap in reliability. The latter has a nicer GUI than the former, but a nicer user interface is not enough to justify spending another $1000+ on a machine for your secretary.
During this obssessive drive to faster, bigger, and badder computers and OSes, eventually the technology reaches a point at which it exceeds the needs of the customers. We have reached that point -- that knee of the technology curve. Any further technical advancements beyond the knee does not bring new customers to computer company XYZ. The computer-systems market now resembles or will soon resemble the automotive market: a replacement market for broken devices.
I do not replace my Chevrolet Camaro when a new sports car enters the automotive market. I replace my Camaro when it becomes too expensive to repair.
No spokesperson for a computer company ever talks about the arrival of the "knee". It means flat sales and thin margins for the company.
Well, the knee has arrived. The personal-computer industry is now a mature industry like the automotive industry. Welcome to flat sales and used-computer salescritters.
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?
I've just gone through another round in the gruelling marathon to crush MSIE where I work (I do security at a small-medium security dotcom - in the range 250-500 users.) In turns out that whilst we have one major internal app that's IE-only, apart from that everything works in Firefox. This makes it much easier these days for those of us techie types lucky enough to be trusted to run Linux on our workstations. I use rdesktop (and stunnel) to work on our Windows servers, Outlook calendaring still requires me to use that vile PoS, Outlook Web Access, but everything else is seamless. At the moment we're XPSP2 for the vast majority of end-user machines, and we won't even consider allowing Vista *anywhere* until well into the SP1 cycle. And if that sucks... MS' last hope will be Backcomb or whatever the next vapourware Windows client's called. I have a theory about that: I think it's going to suck. And I think some significant fraction of the people not employed to be directly hands-on technical, but who spend a lot of time in meetings with programmers, coders, architects and whatnot are going to start noticing more and more Linux machines on the tables, and will start asking for it themselves.
MS are at precisely that agonising point of the lifecycle Apple were at in the early 90s, before they started doodling ideas for Copland. They need to ditch the legacy baggage - they really need to start from scratch, build a complete new OS with a clean simple elegant design, then hack up support for old software. (MS have it easier in that there's now virtualisation, admittedly.)
But even more than an architectural reset, I think they need a mindset and culture reset. There used to be a bit of a buzz about demerging MS into separate OS, Office, general software corps. Right now, I'm more convinced than ever that the final end-point for Microsoft will be as a vendor of application software, networked app services, and an awful lot of consulting, all running on a Free (or forked BSD-like, more likely) kernel. But that's not going to happen until the current business model has been seen to fail through it's inability to produce software that does what users want - a pretty basic concept - and that's going to take, ooh, at least half-a-dozen major release cycles (two or three decades.)
My employer's lucky in having relatively little investment in massive fat-client l-o-b Windows apps, and instead delivering virtually all our internal custom s/w (ordering, provisioning, customer service & support etc) systems as web apps. OpenOffice is the magic key. The only piece missing is routine mass hardware support, and the wind has finally switched direction on that, just as it has on DRM'd music.
Remember, you read it hear first ;)
I think you missed the point. I can google "Flamingo" and "problems" and get over a million results - does this mean a million people are having problems with their flamingo?
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
And this quote from the article proves it:
"They wouldn't be licensing Windows desktop if they didn't have the intent to deploy Vista"
Actually, yes "they" would.
If you are buying machines for any reason, why wouldn't you buy the Vista licensing and use your downgrade rights to run XP? The volume licenses cost the same - why limit your choices?
Microsoft really needs to start listening to their customers.
-ted
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.
I think that their most important failure is their development process.
For years, Microsoft's books about software management were the best, because it included human management (by suggesting using geniuses for the coding) along with software planning.
But these last years, the agile methodologies (TDD, extreme programming, etc...) appeared and Microsoft has not been able to use them.
First, their main problem is that they have a lot of legacy code (millions of lines of code !) with ZERO automated test (we don't count code analysis as a test). Adding tests and refactoring the code will take several YEARS, since the code is not designed to be automatically tested.
Secondly, their tool (Visual Studio) is still unable to generate proper testing skeletons and sucks at refactoring (even though it's promised since several years).
Meanwhile, we see Apple, Google and Mozilla successfully use agile technologies, and tools like Eclipse ease agile development.
Apple releases one upgrade every SIX months, and Firefox releases one new version every year. Why cannot Microsoft do the same ?
A generation of cell phones takes less than one year !
Console generations last 2 or 3 years.
Even Ubuntu has a release cycle of one year.
Do Microsoft think everybody will wait 3 YEARS to get their new expensive OS ?
Technology changes every year, and gets cheaper, while Windows is still using old development procedures, and their OS are more and more expensive.
Microsoft has to quickly drop its one year beta phase, and implement automated tests, or Vista will die within the two next years.
Where I work, it is not a risk. It has been confirmed that our IT team will skip Vista completely, as it does not meet our needs as well as Windows XP does.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
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.
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...
Results 1 - 10 of about 162,000,000 for windows problems. (0.16 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 101,000,000 for linux problems.
Results 1 - 10 of about 95,000 for windows "sucks ass"
Results 1 - 10 of about 44,000 for linux "sucks ass".
Results 1 - 10 of about 32,300,000 for vista problems. (0.13 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,220,000 for RHEL problems. (0.15 seconds
So What's your point?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Ubuntu is a good desktop OS. Linux is the name of the kernel.
Just like Red Hat produce a great enterprise product. The user experience is still defined by the quality of the product provided by Red Hat. Linux based distributions usually share from the wealth of quality software produced and provided by the community, but that doesn't mean that the responsibility (or blame) for the quality of the distribution falls on the KDE or Gnome project manager. That's backwards. These projects do great work and then give you (or in the two examples the companies) the source. To presume that this is the final product would show an amazing lack of imagination.
An individual distribution can do as much to improve or customize the operating environment as they want. Including developing standards and improvements based on their target market. When people expect "Linux" or the community at large to do this I find it kind of alarming. Linux and the open source projects surrounding it are far too diverse in scope and purpose to create the kind of one-size-fits-all user utopia you seem to be suggesting. But if you're interested in seeing it succeed in a particular segment (desktop in this case) then focusing your comments or energy on a single distribution would probably be the right way to address your concerns (and maybe even help or make a difference).
Finally (sorry, this is long) a Windows compatibility layer does not mean Windows clone. If that's something you're actually looking for I think you'll always be disappointed. At best Wine is a crutch to possibly ease the transition.
Quack, quack.
Edsel at Risk of Being Bypassed by Customers.
Cheers
* Carthago Delenda Est *
I've installed ubuntu, and even as very technical user, I had problems when trying to customize my installation to my needs. You basic email, web, IM works out-of-the-box with no problems. However I need to: - connect my windows mobile device. (no i'm not going to reflash it with something else) - had problems with ATI driver - have to compile drivers for any obscure devices i might try to connect - safe mode is not graphical - windows was snappier on my 6 year old laptop (probably due to generic drivers being used by ubuntu) I'm afraid we're living in a MS ecosystem. In the business world it's Windows-Exchange-MS office + windows mobile. At home it's windows, windows games, windows media center, and xbox. Ubuntu has given Linux some sort of standardization but still I think they need alot of money to even approach the dominance of MS. Even Ubuntu feels like many separate projects held together by string. Of course Apple has their own eco-system too. Conclusion: governments should do more to support open source for the benefit of all.
--- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme,
You'll have a dancing monkey throw a chair at me to buy Vista, otherwise i'm not budging.
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.
Most Mac users accept that each new OS X release will require more RAM to run than the last. But each new release adds some highly visible and heavily promoted features - Expose, Dashboard, Spotlight, Time Machine etc...
Vista also adds new features, but Microsoft haven't done enough to convince the user-base that these features justify the increased system requirements. Worse still, a lot of users believe that the increased system requirements are down to evil DRM and other shenanigans.
Like it or not, Apple's 'crowd-pleasing' development and marketing works wonders on the average Mac user. Microsoft could learn a lot from Apple in that regard.
Why in hell is this going to be Windows SEVEN?? I can remember Windows 3 (well, 3.1 anyway) and there have been a LOT more than three versions (4, 5, and 6) since then ... 95, 98, 98SE, ME, NT, 2000, XP, and Vista ... seems like this next one should be Windows TWELVE, shouldn't it?
Oh, well, we know M$ can't write software, I guess they can't count either.
Teen Angel - a Ghost Story
I'll be surprised if the larger companies switch to Vista. A general rule of thumb is that the larger the company, the slower any software transition. Many reasons for this, from testing compatibility of your apps with the new software, to layers of bureaucracy to go through. As an example, General Electric is roughly 60% WinXP and 40% Win2K, at least in Europe -- I can't speak for other territories. Office 2000 is deployed on appoximately 80% of systems, Office XP on another 15%, and only 5% or so having moved to the 'modern' Office 2003 -- this despite known errors in Excel 2000 with workbooks containing lots of pivot tables and formulae running into the 'out of memory' issue. Given that they are the world's second largest company, and that there's no way they will be upgrading to any new OS without having, say, 3-4 years to test it and get it approved by the powers that be, that's a huge number of sales Microsoft will miss out on. I can only assume that other comperably large companies have similar behavior.
Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
Most Mac users accept that each new OS X release will require more RAM to run than the last.
I have two "old" Macs. An Imac (end of 2005) and an iBook (April 2005). Both using PPC. Neither of them had max RAM (iBook is 768 Mb for example).
I installed Leopard on both 2 weeks ago. They work as before or even slightly better.
In my (admittedly limited experience) MacOSX does not requires extra RAM or more powerful CPUs to give acceptable performance when a new OS version is released.
I see you don't work in "IT Support". If you did you would know how stupid that is. Large and even small companies either hire individuals or hire outsource IT companies for "Support" These individuals that "do" the actual support work are trained Techs or Engineers. They don't need to call MS and never do. When they do get stumped with a problem they either call a cohort in the business and ask them if they know of a fix or go online and in the case of Windoze go to the TechNet site or check the forums of answers. I know this for a fact I work for a company that does Outsourced IT for small to medium sized businesses. We NEVER! call Microsoft! We are engineers and most likely know their OS better than they do so why call and waste time?
Now for Joe and Jane user that works for a company that we support who are they going to call? They call us. That is what we get paid for. We are "Support" not Microsoft. We still support Win95 if needed. MS doesn't. Hell we will even support DOS if needed. We are Systems Engineers where I work. We work on systems. We don't care what it runs on. We will work on it. A MCSE is NOT a System Engineer. A real Systems Engineer maybe better at one system OS than the other but he can work on any of them. All systems are not Microsoft.
So what if Joe and Jane user decide to run Linux or a Sun desktop? Who are they going to call for support? They are going to call us that is what we get paid for and yes they will get support! You might get transfered to a different person but you will gladly get support. We support most flavors of Linux and Solaris. Most of our customers don't realize it but they may have an XP desktop but most of the backend servers that are serving them are running Solaris or Linux.
Actually we discourage the use of Vista and say that we don't really support it. Any Windoze boxes we put online are XP. We beg our customer NOT to get Vista. These days we are encouraging our clients to really look at Sun and Linux. One of our big points is if your going to have to learn a new desktop and a new office suite. Why not make the change to Linux or Solaris and be done with client licenses, malware, spyware, viruses, blue screens O' death, changing desktops, and on and on...
Personally I haven't even looked at Vista. I did watch my boss play with it for a week and then reload XP. (yes he's a Windows engineer) His evaluation? "What a piece of shit." I must admit I have turned Vista off a couple of times to load FC7 or Solaris10 on the machine infected by Vista. Vista is not an OS. It is an infection in itself.
Why will I not learn it or touch Vista? Anyone that has worked Windows support knows the scenario. You work on a system and it fails again it is now YOUR FAULT its broke. If I never touch it, then it is never my fault. What do I tell people when they cry to me about their Vista machine? "I told you not to buy that crap. Sorry I don't work on Vista."
Remember the "The Suit" that is screaming about support isn't the poor bastard that has to work on it. I am.