Not necessarily, I've been beaten down all over this thread for not 'drinking the coolaid' It's not that I don't like coolaid, it's just this particular flavor reminds me of ASS. Maybe it's just me. I guess I could be the zealot kook who can't get over the past, but honestly I just think Vista is a chrome plated turd. I didn't really mean any offence to you or any of the other posters, but it's hard to guage harmless sarcasm when your typing it, or reading it. Anyway, have a great day! (not sarcasm)
Sorry dude it was a good discussion, but as of this morning my level of Give-a-damn for this whole argument is gone. Those who are true believers will never be disuaded. Just promise me you will come back and post should Vista go the way of the ME.
Honestly dude I've slept since I was last in this debate if you wanna call it that, and I just can't get fired up about it today. Besides unlike 3/4 of the posters on this thread, I actually got laid by a REAL GIRL.
Whatever dude, you know what I'm talking about, and you know your working in a cube in Redmond Washington. I hope they pay you well, as for me I can't waste any more time on this stuff.
Trust me when I tell you that all this and more was tried. In the rush to promote an OS that was probably not as ready for release as they would have hoped, Microsoft has embittered a generation or 2 of IT professionals. Articles like the one cited do little to assuage these feelings. Saying, "Sales of our new flagship OS are lacking, therefore you need to help things along by convincing management of the need to upgrade." is prepostorous! - I buy Nathan's hot dogs. They taste the best. No one has to convince me, or cajole me. I take one bite, sales pitch over, I'm sold. When you produce something truly great you don't have to convince ANYONE to buy it, they just do. As long as we applaud mediocrity excellence will continue to illude us.
AND YOU SIR/MAM ARE AN ANONYMOUS COWARD!! It says so on your post. Leave a name next time (for yourself). Such foul explatives should be claimed. Actually I would guess that you are a little ashamed. At least you should be, you CHILDISH twit.
I don't know if you read the other reply to your post or not - but I think you hit a nerve. lol
No wonder they posted that anonymously. Betcha a Microsoft dollar that was the parent poster lashing out.
Well kudos to you for that. But that hasn't been the experience a lot of people have had, and in my employment, I have had to try and deploy Vista. Even turning off the Bs & Ws we had issues that to this day give me nightmares, and that was after 3 months prep. We were assured by a Microsoft rep that our hardware config would run Vista. Sweet...
Chipset graphics is considered mediocre hardware. A discrete graphics solution is hard to be found in ANY corporate environment, which is what the original post is about. - How did your 2004 hardware score on the Vista compatiblity test. A high 2 or a low 3? Cause mine's a pretty hot system -AMD X2 6400+ 3.2 Ghz 2GB RAM X1950 card- and barely got a high 5. If you seriously run all the bells and whistles you actually paid for, I'll bet it's a dog. No I'll bet the only way you can defend Vista is that you didn't pay $400 for it and are probably running a VL edition that you got from your network admin so you could work from home, or a student licensed edition that you paid very little for. It's not an insult to buy new hardware to run a new Linux distro because it (the Linux distro) didn't cost as much as a new computer.
But this IS what the debate is about. For MOST people who buy this software it comes at an immense premuim.(300 to 400 dollars US or more, depending on version) and then HAVE to upgrade their hardware in MOST cases to enjoy the 'features' that they darn well have paid for. The original post was about an article designed to give IT admins the ammo to sell their corporate bosses on Vista. Do you think major corporations can all come and get their licensing through your campus book store?
I'm sorry I must be crazy. I didn't know they were selling Vista and Office 2007 for $15 a pop. Can anyone else confirm this? - And of course they aren't forcing anyone to do anything. Everyone always has a choice, and right now many of them are choosing to buy NEW computers with XP. Must be why articles like the one they released and was featured in the original post exist.
I'm not ignoring anything, and don't hate Microsoft. Read my posts. - I believe that Microsoft has some brilliant, talented people working for them, which makes the mess surrounding Vista deployment even more disappointing. Whether the breakdown comes in the form of silo-ed project management, or corporate tomfoolery is at this point irrelevant. - If I owned a shipping business that shipped perishable goods, and I bought a fleet of trucks to transport said goods around the country from the number one manufacturer of trucks IN THE WORLD, and within a short time a large percentage of those trucks had major mechanical issues, and my mechanics were often working around the clock, AND I was constantly loosing goods over it, I would be righteously indignant. If I asked the company to fix these issues on their dime, and was told "Sorry, we aren't going to fix those. Instead we're going to 'issue a patch that should keep your trucks running' then make you wait a few years when we'll release delivery truck 2.0, which of course we'll charge you for again, and we promise this time it'll solve ALL your delivery problems." They'd be out of business in a week. Why does Microsoft get by with this kind of thing OVER & OVER again?!
I'm glad someone else agrees. Some of the replies here are getting stupid. Suggestions that there is no support for Linux?! Sounds like FUD. You can get help for Linux ANYWHERE. There are a multitude of threads and forums for Linux and just about any open source software product that runs on it. Sheesh!
If you're not on the Microsoft payroll, you should be.
Linux doesn't force you to upgrade hardware when Linux upgrades because the choice is percieved as elective. Current versions of the software that runs in Ubuntu will run in Fedora 3. Try running Office 2007 on Win2000. And by hardware upgrades I mean from CURRENT hardware. Vista doesn't run worth a darn on mediocre hardware released IN 2006!! Let alone 1999.
Different distros certainly do have support. I don't have time to look up all the links, but if you truely are interested you can find them the same way I did.
support.novell.com/linux
www.linux.org/docs
www.redhat.com/apps/support
Google is a powerful tool for research. Try it. =)
How well do you believe a machine @ these specs will run Vista?
How well do you believe a machine @ these specs will run Office 2007.
The article from Microsoft cited states that this will have to be addressed with any argument for upgrading to Vista. Does the article assume that Enterprises currently running other Microsoft OSes are doing so with anything less than 512MB of RAM? I would call that a clear stretch.
The difference is that Linux isn't charging anyone a hefty sum for the upgrade, or telling them they need to upgrade their hardware to exotic levels. Linux also has a much longer support lifecycle, therefore it's a suggestion rather than a mandate or worse, a veiled threat.
I think there is a common point missed by everyone who takes Microsoft's side on this. They've already had their Win95 moment. They didn't learn much. It's as if Microsoft is the last to get the memo on these issues. If they had spent the 87 million dollars they 'invested' in SCO (who promptly used it to try and bring legal action againced Linux itself?!) and used it instead to do some research on why the *ix model of security seemed so much more robust, they might have been able to buy themselves a clue.
THIS IS A PROPRIETARY SYSTEM with a HUGE development budget and a massive amount of very talented developers. Why are they consistently releasing overglorified betas to the public as final releases, and forcing the world to be their own personal test and debug environment, all while charging a king's ransom for the priveledge?!
It is simply outrageous.
Slashdot Mirror
Not necessarily, I've been beaten down all over this thread for not 'drinking the coolaid' It's not that I don't like coolaid, it's just this particular flavor reminds me of ASS. Maybe it's just me. I guess I could be the zealot kook who can't get over the past, but honestly I just think Vista is a chrome plated turd. I didn't really mean any offence to you or any of the other posters, but it's hard to guage harmless sarcasm when your typing it, or reading it. Anyway, have a great day! (not sarcasm)
Lol. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Sorry dude it was a good discussion, but as of this morning my level of Give-a-damn for this whole argument is gone. Those who are true believers will never be disuaded. Just promise me you will come back and post should Vista go the way of the ME.
Honestly dude I've slept since I was last in this debate if you wanna call it that, and I just can't get fired up about it today. Besides unlike 3/4 of the posters on this thread, I actually got laid by a REAL GIRL.
Whatever dude, you know what I'm talking about, and you know your working in a cube in Redmond Washington. I hope they pay you well, as for me I can't waste any more time on this stuff.
Some of us have to work for a living...
Trust me when I tell you that all this and more was tried. In the rush to promote an OS that was probably not as ready for release as they would have hoped, Microsoft has embittered a generation or 2 of IT professionals. Articles like the one cited do little to assuage these feelings. Saying, "Sales of our new flagship OS are lacking, therefore you need to help things along by convincing management of the need to upgrade." is prepostorous! - I buy Nathan's hot dogs. They taste the best. No one has to convince me, or cajole me. I take one bite, sales pitch over, I'm sold. When you produce something truly great you don't have to convince ANYONE to buy it, they just do. As long as we applaud mediocrity excellence will continue to illude us.
AND YOU SIR/MAM ARE AN ANONYMOUS COWARD!! It says so on your post. Leave a name next time (for yourself). Such foul explatives should be claimed. Actually I would guess that you are a little ashamed. At least you should be, you CHILDISH twit.
I don't know if you read the other reply to your post or not - but I think you hit a nerve. lol No wonder they posted that anonymously. Betcha a Microsoft dollar that was the parent poster lashing out.
Well said.
Nope....and I'm also not a corporate tool. Thanks for playing.
Well kudos to you for that. But that hasn't been the experience a lot of people have had, and in my employment, I have had to try and deploy Vista. Even turning off the Bs & Ws we had issues that to this day give me nightmares, and that was after 3 months prep. We were assured by a Microsoft rep that our hardware config would run Vista. Sweet...
Holy sweet mother of cow. How did I miss that post!? I give up. DEVO was right. We are de-evolving into monkeys. lol
ROFL dude just ROFL!
Chipset graphics is considered mediocre hardware. A discrete graphics solution is hard to be found in ANY corporate environment, which is what the original post is about. - How did your 2004 hardware score on the Vista compatiblity test. A high 2 or a low 3? Cause mine's a pretty hot system -AMD X2 6400+ 3.2 Ghz 2GB RAM X1950 card- and barely got a high 5. If you seriously run all the bells and whistles you actually paid for, I'll bet it's a dog. No I'll bet the only way you can defend Vista is that you didn't pay $400 for it and are probably running a VL edition that you got from your network admin so you could work from home, or a student licensed edition that you paid very little for. It's not an insult to buy new hardware to run a new Linux distro because it (the Linux distro) didn't cost as much as a new computer.
But this IS what the debate is about. For MOST people who buy this software it comes at an immense premuim.(300 to 400 dollars US or more, depending on version) and then HAVE to upgrade their hardware in MOST cases to enjoy the 'features' that they darn well have paid for. The original post was about an article designed to give IT admins the ammo to sell their corporate bosses on Vista. Do you think major corporations can all come and get their licensing through your campus book store?
I'm sorry I must be crazy. I didn't know they were selling Vista and Office 2007 for $15 a pop. Can anyone else confirm this? - And of course they aren't forcing anyone to do anything. Everyone always has a choice, and right now many of them are choosing to buy NEW computers with XP. Must be why articles like the one they released and was featured in the original post exist.
I'm not ignoring anything, and don't hate Microsoft. Read my posts. - I believe that Microsoft has some brilliant, talented people working for them, which makes the mess surrounding Vista deployment even more disappointing. Whether the breakdown comes in the form of silo-ed project management, or corporate tomfoolery is at this point irrelevant. - If I owned a shipping business that shipped perishable goods, and I bought a fleet of trucks to transport said goods around the country from the number one manufacturer of trucks IN THE WORLD, and within a short time a large percentage of those trucks had major mechanical issues, and my mechanics were often working around the clock, AND I was constantly loosing goods over it, I would be righteously indignant. If I asked the company to fix these issues on their dime, and was told "Sorry, we aren't going to fix those. Instead we're going to 'issue a patch that should keep your trucks running' then make you wait a few years when we'll release delivery truck 2.0, which of course we'll charge you for again, and we promise this time it'll solve ALL your delivery problems." They'd be out of business in a week. Why does Microsoft get by with this kind of thing OVER & OVER again?!
I'm glad someone else agrees. Some of the replies here are getting stupid. Suggestions that there is no support for Linux?! Sounds like FUD. You can get help for Linux ANYWHERE. There are a multitude of threads and forums for Linux and just about any open source software product that runs on it. Sheesh!
If you're not on the Microsoft payroll, you should be. Linux doesn't force you to upgrade hardware when Linux upgrades because the choice is percieved as elective. Current versions of the software that runs in Ubuntu will run in Fedora 3. Try running Office 2007 on Win2000. And by hardware upgrades I mean from CURRENT hardware. Vista doesn't run worth a darn on mediocre hardware released IN 2006!! Let alone 1999.
Different distros certainly do have support. I don't have time to look up all the links, but if you truely are interested you can find them the same way I did. support.novell.com/linux www.linux.org/docs www.redhat.com/apps/support Google is a powerful tool for research. Try it. =)
How well do you believe a machine @ these specs will run Vista? How well do you believe a machine @ these specs will run Office 2007. The article from Microsoft cited states that this will have to be addressed with any argument for upgrading to Vista. Does the article assume that Enterprises currently running other Microsoft OSes are doing so with anything less than 512MB of RAM? I would call that a clear stretch.
The difference is that Linux isn't charging anyone a hefty sum for the upgrade, or telling them they need to upgrade their hardware to exotic levels. Linux also has a much longer support lifecycle, therefore it's a suggestion rather than a mandate or worse, a veiled threat.
Or does it seem like we may have some Microsoft employees posting on this thread. Hmmm.... Reply if you're thinking what I'm thinking.
I think there is a common point missed by everyone who takes Microsoft's side on this. They've already had their Win95 moment. They didn't learn much. It's as if Microsoft is the last to get the memo on these issues. If they had spent the 87 million dollars they 'invested' in SCO (who promptly used it to try and bring legal action againced Linux itself?!) and used it instead to do some research on why the *ix model of security seemed so much more robust, they might have been able to buy themselves a clue. THIS IS A PROPRIETARY SYSTEM with a HUGE development budget and a massive amount of very talented developers. Why are they consistently releasing overglorified betas to the public as final releases, and forcing the world to be their own personal test and debug environment, all while charging a king's ransom for the priveledge?! It is simply outrageous.