If China declared War on US or the US declared war on China it would escalate into a another World War which would turn out badly for the entire World.
Anyway, Novell wasn't the source of the "desktop productivity solution" when I did desktop support for them. They ran Groupwise (which does email and calendars) at DHS. They also ran Office and in some cases also WordPerfect Suite. They ran Crystal Reports when needed. There is, or was anyway, an entire subdepartment of DHS that handles creating, modifying, warehousing, and distributing paper forms. Those people had additional software for that. There were mainframes in the Harris building (the main DHS office center on South Main St. East) and many users had terminal emulation packages to access that. In no way did they switch everything from Novell to Microsoft on the desktop.
With the exception of Crystal Reports, a %100 Microsoft solution could replace all their software packages making it cheaper in the long run. Why on earth would a company have GroupWise, Office, and WordPerfect. That is 3 expensive software packages when all they need is 1 of them that will do all they could do before, not to mention it's easier to support 1 product then 3.
Since MS has such a large market share and such a large product base this is a valid claim. They didn't claim they work with EVERYONE. If the OSS world wants to gain a larger market share they HAVE to work with MS products, why would MS make their products with with OSS?
Even when I get stuck, I can hire people who know more than I do to get an answer if I need it *now* or I can get free support in the mailing lists.
How is this different in a Windows enviroment.
Free Support: MS Newsgroup + 1000's of sites / forums / articles online, personally the newsgroups are the best, I constantly get answers that I need and unlike Linux sites I dont get laughed at for not knowing something.
2. Paid support: This can either be obtained directly from MS or if you need more or dont want to speak to Abdul you can contacts 1000's of consultants, because WIndows is the most widely used OS in the world they are not hard to find.
Funny, I'd say the same about Windows. But you have to admit you are in the minority, the majority of IT workers have a very good knowledge of Windows either because of preference or work.
When it comes to installing, Linux is much simpler and faster (and thus cheaper). When it comes to configuration, Linux is (again) easier and faster. Software installation? No contest (try comparing MS Office with OpenOffice packages.) Again this depends on what your installing and for what type of enviroment. Images and Imaging/rollout systems (Altiris / SMS..etc) make this issue a non-issue. For smaller installs simply use the OEM CD, if you dont purchase OEM workstations then your stuck doing it the long hard way, personally I hate clones for this reason, just a big waste of time. So basically your point is only valid for clone workstations.
Then you have to factor in administration and update headaches (Linux is a one-stop-shop, updating in the background, whereas Windows update does the base OS, but then I have to update all of the other software manually.) Not to mention anti-virus and other associated headaches. Again this is untrue, the one-stop shop only applies for Applications free or released by the distro, this doesnt really do much when you have other applications needed for a business or work.
Windows update only updates Windows, where Microsoft Update updates alot of Microsoft applications, Virus defs come in automatically and like Linux other applications need to be updated either manually or via automatic updates if the app has that function.
By your reponces its apparent that you do not admini a Windows enviroment (big or small) or you dont do your job well.
And surely it has to be most targeted, after all we're always being told Windows has such a problem with malware because it is most popular and not merely because it is swizz cheese.
And it has nothing to do with the fact that Windows has a very large user base of people who don't know how to use a computer, thus making them very vurnerable to virueses, worms and adware.
If Apple had the Windows share they would be home to all those users who are the main reason for the success for Viruses and adware.
That doesnt really apply to the computer world. Windows has x amount of users, and a large percentage of them are not smart, thus easier targets. Apple has x amount of users and a small percentage of them are not smart, thus harder to target.
All modern OSes are either behind a router + software firewall or just have a software firewall, this increases the need to target people who don't know better. Worms and Viruses are a big money industry, why target MACs when you have a very large target with Windows and make A LOT more money.
If Apple had 90%+ of the market their would be a very large amount of stupid users, which would make it a very easy target, few viruses just walk into a computer these days, they need a user to help them come in.
I do not dislike Apple, I just dont like the false safety they advertise. I use Windows and am not concerned with viruses or worms
I havent really looked at the market share percentages of OSes recently, has Apple really grown large enough for Virus makers to start targeting Apple?
The reason is because Apple (and Linux) users are not effected by Viruses and Worms or at least that is what vendors claim. MS never claimed that Windows was not vulnerable. They do claim that Vista is not 'as' vulnerable, which is true, but only until it is the most used OS...which is the same as every OS.
About 500 seats are involved. MS conceded to letting Office users run the software at home as well.
Any business that purchases MS software assurance (pretty much comes automatically when purchases from a reseller) receives all the benifits of software assurance which includes home user for employees + other great benifits. MS didnt 'conced' anything.
Not sure if you can get this in the states but Bell sells them in Canada. It has text messaging, however I do not think its possible to get a phone without it these days.
It works good, doest have music or a phone and the Internet can be disabled.
Adware like Viruses can do the following:
1. Screw up a computer beyond belief
2. Force users to spend lots of money to get their computers repaired
3. ruin the entire computer / Internet experience, often making users scared of their own device
4. Make users dislike Windows (just look at Slashdot, if viruses and adware were not an issue in the industry, MS would still be hated but not has much as they are now.
MS has both the money and the invesment interest in reducing both viruses and adware, however they still need the means.
MS makes billions off of selling software, they are not stupid enough to start including adware in their software, they know how much people dislike it.
truth of the issue is that whoever figures out how to remove viruses and adware from Operating Systems will make billions, currently their is no solution to industry issue.
Ive had Ubuntu loaded on this machine and it didnt seem any faster then XP, sure I probably could have custimized it to hell, but who has the time and the need to do that?
Did IE 7 add a "hold a gun to your head" plugin recently that we don't know about?
No, but it did remove the need for firefox.. IE is needed for many sites that I use, but I have never encountered a site that I required firefox to use. With IE7 I do not have to use 2 browsers.
Wow... I didn't know that 'IT Professionals' were immune to viruses! Who would have thought that viruses, trojans, etc. were clever enough to check your resume... No, I am more computer savy then the normal user. If you work in IT and are in charge of 100's of workstations and servers you should be smart enough to be able to avoid viruses, if not you should probably look into other fields of work.
So, you are an 'IT Professional' that proudly proclaims they use Vista... Oh wait - you forgot mention that you were a Micro$oft employee...:-)
As an 'IT Professional' it is my job to learn new technologies, especially the ones that will be extremly wide spread in a few years. Why wait till everyone is using it to learn it, its not like MS is going to come out with another version next year that will work more like XP. Vista is here to stay
Their are a lot of websites that I and my clients use that require activex components or just wont even display unless I am running IE. Thats the reason why I couldnt switch 100% before. Before IE 7 I didnt have tabs and Firefox seemed better and felt better, now I just dont see the benefit of Firefox, I dont dislike it, I just dont have a need for it.
Who would want to use a machine without a PIII or higher chip in the first place. I am running a dual core centrino chip + 2gigs of ram and it still isnt enough. When I work on an older machine I just want to cry they are so slow compared to todays standards.
Slashdot Mirror
If China declared War on US or the US declared war on China it would escalate into a another World War which would turn out badly for the entire World.
Like all the Apple commercials it is marketed towards people with a 4 year old mind (not saying your daughter isnt smart ;) )
Why use an open format when as you say 95% of the population uses a product that doesnt.
With the exception of Crystal Reports, a %100 Microsoft solution could replace all their software packages making it cheaper in the long run. Why on earth would a company have GroupWise, Office, and WordPerfect. That is 3 expensive software packages when all they need is 1 of them that will do all they could do before, not to mention it's easier to support 1 product then 3.
Since MS has such a large market share and such a large product base this is a valid claim. They didn't claim they work with EVERYONE. If the OSS world wants to gain a larger market share they HAVE to work with MS products, why would MS make their products with with OSS?
The OS itself doesnt mean much, all the additional software that is available / works with the OS is what makes you decide which road to travel.
Sure I could install some random Linux distro on a clients network, however when they start asking for solutions I will be screwed.
Is it such a bad thing that they rely on some solid products that have well defined API and SDKs... The Horror!
Microsoft Windows wont be the number 1 OS forever, just like ITunes wont be the number 1 music store forever.
Something cheaper and better will come out eventually.
How is this different in a Windows enviroment.
Free Support: MS Newsgroup + 1000's of sites / forums / articles online, personally the newsgroups are the best, I constantly get answers that I need and unlike Linux sites I dont get laughed at for not knowing something.
2. Paid support: This can either be obtained directly from MS or if you need more or dont want to speak to Abdul you can contacts 1000's of consultants, because WIndows is the most widely used OS in the world they are not hard to find.
But you have to admit you are in the minority, the majority of IT workers have a very good knowledge of Windows either because of preference or work.
When it comes to installing, Linux is much simpler and faster (and thus cheaper). When it comes to configuration, Linux is (again) easier and faster. Software installation? No contest (try comparing MS Office with OpenOffice packages.)
Again this depends on what your installing and for what type of enviroment. Images and Imaging/rollout systems (Altiris / SMS..etc) make this issue a non-issue. For smaller installs simply use the OEM CD, if you dont purchase OEM workstations then your stuck doing it the long hard way, personally I hate clones for this reason, just a big waste of time. So basically your point is only valid for clone workstations.
Then you have to factor in administration and update headaches (Linux is a one-stop-shop, updating in the background, whereas Windows update does the base OS, but then I have to update all of the other software manually.) Not to mention anti-virus and other associated headaches.
Again this is untrue, the one-stop shop only applies for Applications free or released by the distro, this doesnt really do much when you have other applications needed for a business or work.
Windows update only updates Windows, where Microsoft Update updates alot of Microsoft applications, Virus defs come in automatically and like Linux other applications need to be updated either manually or via automatic updates if the app has that function.
By your reponces its apparent that you do not admini a Windows enviroment (big or small) or you dont do your job well.
Another post by someone who only read the title!
It is also the reason why Open Source is not always a good idea for Business. What if knowone picks it up
And surely it has to be most targeted, after all we're always being told Windows has such a problem with malware because it is most popular and not merely because it is swizz cheese.
And it has nothing to do with the fact that Windows has a very large user base of people who don't know how to use a computer, thus making them very vurnerable to virueses, worms and adware.
If Apple had the Windows share they would be home to all those users who are the main reason for the success for Viruses and adware.
That doesnt really apply to the computer world. Windows has x amount of users, and a large percentage of them are not smart, thus easier targets. Apple has x amount of users and a small percentage of them are not smart, thus harder to target.
All modern OSes are either behind a router + software firewall or just have a software firewall, this increases the need to target people who don't know better. Worms and Viruses are a big money industry, why target MACs when you have a very large target with Windows and make A LOT more money.
If Apple had 90%+ of the market their would be a very large amount of stupid users, which would make it a very easy target, few viruses just walk into a computer these days, they need a user to help them come in.
I do not dislike Apple, I just dont like the false safety they advertise. I use Windows and am not concerned with viruses or worms
I was being serious!
I havent really looked at the market share percentages of OSes recently, has Apple really grown large enough for Virus makers to start targeting Apple?
The reason is because Apple (and Linux) users are not effected by Viruses and Worms or at least that is what vendors claim. MS never claimed that Windows was not vulnerable. They do claim that Vista is not 'as' vulnerable, which is true, but only until it is the most used OS...which is the same as every OS.
About 500 seats are involved. MS conceded to letting Office users run the software at home as well.
Any business that purchases MS software assurance (pretty much comes automatically when purchases from a reseller) receives all the benifits of software assurance which includes home user for employees + other great benifits. MS didnt 'conced' anything.
Not sure if you can get this in the states but Bell sells them in Canada. It has text messaging, however I do not think its possible to get a phone without it these days.
It works good, doest have music or a phone and the Internet can be disabled.
Adware like Viruses can do the following:
1. Screw up a computer beyond belief
2. Force users to spend lots of money to get their computers repaired
3. ruin the entire computer / Internet experience, often making users scared of their own device
4. Make users dislike Windows (just look at Slashdot, if viruses and adware were not an issue in the industry, MS would still be hated but not has much as they are now.
MS has both the money and the invesment interest in reducing both viruses and adware, however they still need the means.
MS makes billions off of selling software, they are not stupid enough to start including adware in their software, they know how much people dislike it.
truth of the issue is that whoever figures out how to remove viruses and adware from Operating Systems will make billions, currently their is no solution to industry issue.
Take a look at the price of a flat panel touch screen, then look at a MS demo for Surface, the screen itself must cost a lot.
Ive had Ubuntu loaded on this machine and it didnt seem any faster then XP, sure I probably could have custimized it to hell, but who has the time and the need to do that?
Did IE 7 add a "hold a gun to your head" plugin recently that we don't know about?
:-)
No, but it did remove the need for firefox.. IE is needed for many sites that I use, but I have never encountered a site that I required firefox to use. With IE7 I do not have to use 2 browsers.
Wow... I didn't know that 'IT Professionals' were immune to viruses! Who would have thought that viruses, trojans, etc. were clever enough to check your resume...
No, I am more computer savy then the normal user. If you work in IT and are in charge of 100's of workstations and servers you should be smart enough to be able to avoid viruses, if not you should probably look into other fields of work.
So, you are an 'IT Professional' that proudly proclaims they use Vista... Oh wait - you forgot mention that you were a Micro$oft employee...
As an 'IT Professional' it is my job to learn new technologies, especially the ones that will be extremly wide spread in a few years. Why wait till everyone is using it to learn it, its not like MS is going to come out with another version next year that will work more like XP. Vista is here to stay
Their are a lot of websites that I and my clients use that require activex components or just wont even display unless I am running IE. Thats the reason why I couldnt switch 100% before. Before IE 7 I didnt have tabs and Firefox seemed better and felt better, now I just dont see the benefit of Firefox, I dont dislike it, I just dont have a need for it.
Who would want to use a machine without a PIII or higher chip in the first place. I am running a dual core centrino chip + 2gigs of ram and it still isnt enough. When I work on an older machine I just want to cry they are so slow compared to todays standards.