Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Dell Warns of Vista Upgrade Challenges

Posted by kdawson on Thu Jul 05, 2007 09:24 AM
from the if-not-putting-on-the-brakes-at-least-getting-off-the-accelerator dept.
Mattaburn writes with a story up on ZDNet UK reporting that Dell is warning businesses of the migration challenges that lie ahead as they move to Vista. The article notes what an unusual step it is for a company of Dell's size to be "toning down its sales pitch for Microsoft's Vista operating system" — particularly because "one of the issues the hardware vendor is warning business about is the extra hardware they will need to buy." Quoting: "'They need to be looking at the number of images they will be installing and the size of these images,' said Dell's European client services business manager, Niall Fitzgerald. 'A 2GB image for each user will have a big impact.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by TrippTDF (513419) <hiland@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Thursday July 05 2007, @09:32AM (#19753865)
    ...for companies when Microsoft stops supporting XP?
    • Probably just increased hardware costs for Vista capable PCs rather than Linux on the desktop but we can still hope.
      • by quanticle (843097) on Thursday July 05 2007, @09:59AM (#19754209) Homepage

        By the time Microsoft stops supporting XP, the costs for hardware will probably have dropped to the point where Vista capable hardware is affordable.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Vista capable hardware isn't expensive and I'm baffled why people keep saying this.

          Machines I have that have Vista on them:

          4+ year old gaming rig: Athlon 2Ghz, 1.5GB RAM, sound blaster, ATI Radeon 9600, small hard drive. Today's cost is about $400 for a whole unit from online retailers.
          3 year old work laptop (Dell Latitude): Pentium M 1.7Ghz, 2GB RAM, bad video, bad sound, small and slow hard drive. Cost $1800 new (or thereabouts).
          0 year old wife's PC: Core 2 Duo 2.13Ghz, 2GB RAM, on-board sound, old Nvidia
          • 2GB of RAM is $80-100 - multiply that by every machine in the company - and that's assuming the motherboards are set for a maximum of 4GB of RAM and can take 1-2GB sticks...

            Do you have any idea how many small businesses - not big corporations that routinely swap out machines every three years because they've amortized them out - are running on four, five, six, seven year old machines that are perfectly fine for office workers with XP? Or that almost all office machines not used for video editing are probabl
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            1) After December XP not available for sale (volumne license folks may be exempt)

            Why would you be purchasing new XP licenses. If one of your machines dies, you can use its license on the next machine. At worst, you'd have to call Microsoft and explain. If you have a volume license, you don't even need to call MS, you just install XP on the new box.

            2) Drivers for the new hardware you buy may not work on anything prior to vista.

            That's not going to happen for a long time. Heck, most of the hardware I

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            >>> No version of Windows could run a current browser usably on this machine.

            Are you sure? Windows 98 hacked to run Firefox would probably work too. I use a VM based on that combo for a disposable browser that fits on a small thumb drive.

    • by j.sanchez1 (1030764) on Thursday July 05 2007, @09:42AM (#19753995)
      According to this [microsoft.com], MS will continue to support XP until April 8, 2014. I'm sure most companies will be into Vista long before that date comes.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      If ReactOS isn't a drop-in replacement for XP by 2014, the developers will have a lot of explaining to do.
    • by Ngarrang (1023425) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:18AM (#19754401) Journal

      ...for companies when Microsoft stops supporting XP?
      Nothing. Just because M$ stops its support, does NOT mean the OS will stop in its tracks. Companies are still successfully using DOS, Win 3.1, Win 95 and Win 98. These OSes have long been out of support, but in each of their own cases, the task they are accomplishing is probably still be accomplished just as effectively.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I think the company that I'm at now has said they paid $250,000 to MS last year to keep distributing back ported versions of patches because we hadn't made the jump to XP SP2 yet. The costs calculated out and keeping the systems at SP1 and paying $250,000 outweighed the cost/benefit of an XP SP2 migration plan. Now that we've cycled out most of the old computers that have less than 512MB of memory, the majority of the systems running now were designed after SP2 rolled out and have been configured adequatel
  • Its a good thing actually to prevent vendor lock in.

    Lets hope this makes people think about Ubuntu atleast :-).

    Competition is good, for a technological ecosystem and this is an example of it. Ultimately finally customers benefit and are more free to choose.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Ubuntu is a very nice OS. The problem is with stuff that doesn't work. Most stuff you buy right out of the box will work on XP and might work on Vista if you're lucky :) Of course in one year everything will probably work on Vista that you can buy off the shelf. The problem stays the same with Ubuntu that reverse-engineered drivers may or may not work. When I installed Ubuntu I had hardware that had some user-created drivers which I selected and they didn't work. Until big companies care enough to make sure
  • Not stupid at all (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mwvdlee (775178) on Thursday July 05 2007, @09:35AM (#19753903) Homepage
    By giving an advice which is not intended to generate more sales in the short term, Dell just boosted their credibility with the CEO's, CIO's, CTO's and other non-technical people who'll decide which brand to buy the next time they need to upgrade their 10,000+ PC's.
    The nice thing about big businesses like Dell, is that they have a lot to lose; keeps them at a certain level of honesty. ...Unless they get IBM or MS size, in which case dishonesty isn't punished because people will buy from them no matter what.
  • Wait for SP1 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by j.sanchez1 (1030764) on Thursday July 05 2007, @09:35AM (#19753907)
    While Fitzgerald accepted that some business are holding back from migrating to Vista, he denied that there is a widespread feeling that it is better to wait for Service Pack 1. "I have heard that, and I don't buy it," Fitzgerald said. "It used to be a thing people did, and it might have been the case with, say, Windows 2000, but not now."

    I would disagree. My company's IT department waited until they felt that IE7 was stable and patched enough for a rollout to start offering it. Most of the "techies" that I know think the same thing about Vista. That the really big reasons for not upgrading will be fixed after SP1.
    • Why not ignore it. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by iknownuttin (1099999) on Thursday July 05 2007, @09:39AM (#19753959)
      Most of the "techies" that I know think the same thing about Vista.

      Why do they even want to upgrade?

      I'm on XP Pro and I have absolutely no desire or see any reason to upgrade to Vista. And from what I've seen so far about Vista, my next hardware purchase will not have Vista on it.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        I'm on XP Pro and I have absolutely no desire or see any reason to upgrade to Vista. And from what I've seen so far about Vista, my next hardware purchase will not have Vista on it.

        That is how I felt about Windows 2000, when I was working with it.

        It is amazing how much it feels like history repeating itself. Windows 2000 was one of the better releases of Windows, and certainly the only one I'd use now if I had to use windows at all. (Assuming hardware support.)

        • by Asphalt (529464) on Thursday July 05 2007, @12:52PM (#19756489)
          That said, I wholeheartedly agree with you. Vista has made me start looking at the different flavors of Linux.

          Same here. After running Linux (RH + Windowmaker) exlusively from 1997-2001, I switched over to Windows 2000, and then XP.

          I had no real complaints. Good hardware support and lots of applications.

          Then slowly over the last 6 years I ditched expensive Photoshop and began using GIMP. I stopped upgrading MS Office and installed Open Office. I started using Firefox exclusively. Thunderbird has been my email client for 2 years. I used Azureus for P2P. My stock trading platform is 100% Java.

          It occurred to me last year that I was basically using XP to run 90% open source or platform-neutral applications. And while it was somewhat stable, it was still 32 bit, and was susceptible to all kinds of hacks, and still did crash when I had 20+ apps open, screen saver wouldn't engage, crashes when transferring across MS networks, and some other little things.

          So last month it was time for a new computer.

          I looked at Vista 64 Ultimate bit.

          I looked at Ubuntu 64 bit.

          Why pay $300-ish? I dunno. I used almost all free software.

          Installed Ubuntu, and now have a triple 1600x1200 head setup with 3 monitors attached to 2 video cards.

          It looks beautiful.

          Have only rebooted for a new kernel updated.

          Have some niggling problems (still trying to get the SD card reader and wireless scanner to recognize), but for the most part everything just works, and has yet to crash (knocks wood). And I don't have to do the virus thing constantly. Ad-aware, Norton, Registry cleaner, etc. Was getting tedious. XP had slowed down considerably after the same intall for 2 years.

          And I use the same apps as before. OpenOffice, Gimp, Firefox, Azureus, Bittorrent, Thunderbird, Trading Platform ... I can't really tell the difference as the desktop more or less looks the same as before. Three monitors, everything back in it's original place.

          I'm not a "fanboy" of anything. I still have a XP partition which I purchased 2 years ago for Flight Simulator X. I think Mac OSX is marvelous ... but as far as BUYING a new OS ... I don't really see the point.

          The strides the Linux Desktop have made in the past few years frankly astounded me, and I am running a new box like nothing has happened.

          The OS can see al of my 4GB of memory, it's fast. It's stable. I update and install software with the checkbox. And at native 64 bit, it is much faster on the same hardware ... and I am using the exact same programs I was before with no real compromises (and several actual additions to my software arsenal).

          I don't hate Microsoft. I don't bash Microsoft. Nor do I hate or bash Novell.

          I just don't think they are terribly necessary anymore.

          For the average home user, I've just no idea why Vista would be a need. And that goes for business users too, other than the fact that converting a larger operation from one platform to another may be more trouble than it is worth.

    • Re:Wait for SP1 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MightyYar (622222) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:23AM (#19754477)
      It's just prudent. Why be on the bleeding edge, unless it gives you some kind of competitive advantage? Vista is a nice upgrade, but hardly the sort that would give you much of a competitive advantage.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        What exactly are your "big reasons" for not upgrading?
        What a strange question. Whatever happened to 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it?' You don't need a compelling reason to not upgrade, it's easy and costs nothing. You need a compelling reason to upgrade. Since Vista costs money, a business needs to know that running Vista will make them more money that the cost of the upgrade (including any required retraining).
              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                I'm just saying that Vista has made CONSIDERING linux that much easier, especially if Microsoft continues down that same road that took us to Vista.

                The great thing about "considering" Linux is that it costs you nothing.

                I was going to purchase Vista Ultimate 64bit ... but just for shits and grins I downloaded Ubuntu 7.04 to see what all the fuss was about.

                I will be honest ... I though Ubuntu was a bunch of Linux Fanboy hype about how Linux was ready for the desktop (we have all been hearing this for ye

  • by simong (32944) on Thursday July 05 2007, @09:36AM (#19753917) Homepage
    But by '2GB image' does it mean deploying a new Ghost image for machine upgrades or builds? And would desktops be deployed in place across an office network or on a dedicated replication network? I would say that that is a logistics problem - the greater problem is the migration training.
    • by BKX (5066) on Thursday July 05 2007, @09:53AM (#19754147) Journal
      Sort of. You see, Dell makes one installation, updates it, and installs they're crapware. Then they sysprep it (with the appropriate answer file) and reboot into some other OS (Linux, maybe, since it has the tools to deal with this. It could be Windows based as well, like BartPE or even some bootable form of partition magic. It could be something highly modified but I doubt it. They rarely have to do this, so I'm quite sure that they only have a couple of people who can, and those people probably don't care so much about optimizing the procedure. It really doesn't matter, anyway.) In this alternative environment, they shrink down their clean, sysprepped image to as small as it can get. This is the image they put out on every hard disk they ship. The only thing that's differs between shipped disks is the partition table between hard disk sizes.

      Anyway, during the mini-install on first boot, Windows will automatically resize the filesystem to fill the partition it's on. Because of that feature, Dell only needs one image for all HD sizes, and it can be ridiculously small. The smaller the better, in fact, so that it takes less to write that image to all 8 billion of the HDs they ship. Although I'm quite sure they have specialized hardware and software for this, it still takes time to write out the OS image, and 2GB for Vista is four times longer that 500MB for XP.
    • Training might be the main problem for secretaries or C**, who only use Office, outlook and IE and would need a few weeks to learn that the next iteration works almost exactly as the previous one.
      For people like us, the big problem would be the dozens of small or specialized apps (homemade, third parties or FOSS) we use on reagular basis in our work that refuse to work on Vista and for which there is not yet a working alternative.
  • Migration... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jaaay (1124197) on Thursday July 05 2007, @09:38AM (#19753945)
    The hidden migration problem is with multi-billion dollar companies who you'd assume would update their drivers. When I upgraded to vista I had to use xp drivers for my current model HP laserjet with a workaround I found searching on google. This is the kind of unprofessional stuff that companies wont be doing so waiting probably makes sense because a lot of equipment you can buy now brand new still has no drivers.
  • Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by realmolo (574068) on Thursday July 05 2007, @09:40AM (#19753975)
    I'm hard-pressed to think of ANY reason for companies to "upgrade" to Vista.

    What does it offer to businesses? The improved security is irrelevant in a corporate environment, because companies have everything locked-down pretty tightly already.

    Beyond that, there isn't much Vista does better than XP. At some point, businesses will HAVE to upgrade, of course, but didn't Microsoft say that Vista's successor is only 2 years away? That's not a very long time. I imagine most businesses are just going to stick with XP until they just can't make it work on new hardware anymore.

    Microsoft reached a plateau with Windows 2000 and Windows XP. It's going to be harder and harder for them to convince people they need a new operating system.
    • Re:Why bother? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Half a dent (952274) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:01AM (#19754241)
      "Beyond that, there isn't much Vista does better than XP. At some point, businesses will HAVE to upgrade, of course, but didn't Microsoft say that Vista's successor is only 2 years away? That's not a very long time. I imagine most businesses are just going to stick with XP until they just can't make it work on new hardware anymore."

      We originally said the same thing about XP - that we would stick with 2000 and skip a version then Microsoft released Vista and we're upgrading to XP while we can.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I'm hard-pressed to think of ANY reason for companies to "upgrade" to Vista.

      Support. Hardware manufacturers, 3rd party software developers, and Microsoft themselves will stop supporting XP at some point. I have personally been in this trap before with MS OS's in a corporate environment, you eventually have to move.

      What does it offer to businesses?

      Support. Sorry, it's a big deal.

      The improved security is irrelevant in a corporate environment, because companies have everything locked-down pretty tightly alr
  • 2GB? Pah! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Thursday July 05 2007, @09:45AM (#19754049) Homepage
    I'll just stick it in my gmail account, and mail a copy to everyone in my org. The Exchange Server shouldn't have a problem with that...
  • A sysadmins POV (Score:5, Informative)

    by Shadowruni (929010) on Thursday July 05 2007, @09:47AM (#19754069) Journal
    I played with Vista in a production capacity and I'll only move at gunpoint. Here's why:

    I must use a server for administrative work. (yes, I know I can use registry tricks to make ADUC work but I shouldn't have to)

    I can't run multiple monitors on my existing hardware that's certified for Vista, using the recommended drivers, configed the way MS said to.

    I can't easily change the NIC binding order.

    The sidebar thingy moves on it's own.

    Eats my notebook's battery like Pez.

    Decides my network is a new one that it's never seen before at random... hence network number 12!

    This is just what I could think of in 10 seconds.

    It's not a bad try but I see this as the ME of XP. I'll move when I have no choice... but at this point we're simply buying machines without OS and imaging or wiping them. We don't HAVE to upgrade and I'm not planning to for a REALLY REALLY REAAAAAALLLLY long time.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:11AM (#19754337) Homepage
    Now that Michael Dell is back at the helm, I [hopefully] believe we're seeing a trend of recovery of the respect Dell once commanded. By laying out the facts as they see it, they are helping their customers make better decisions. The respect and loyalty of their customers was once a very strong asset to the company, but at some point in the past, they started squandering that asset by outsourcing support and all sorts of shenanigans that were once the repertoire of their competition. But once Dell started playing the competition's game instead of their own, they started to lose.

    I see this as indication that they are reversing course on this and going back to what worked for them in the past... earning customer respect and loyalty.
  • Dell CYA. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by rizzo320 (911761) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:55AM (#19754891)
    This looks to be more of a "CYA" statement than anything else, probably a direct result of some of the negative articles that have been written about Vista and Microsoft.

    What I really don't understand is why he made the statement in the first place. Dell really isn't over-promoting Vista to its Enterprise/Corporate customers. I recently had to quote out several Dell OptiPlex workstations, and Windows XP Professional is still the default OS licensing option for OptiPlex workstations, which are what most enterprise/corporate customers purchase.

    The whole "2 GB" image thing is a bunch of nonsense as well. With every version of Windows that comes out, the default footprint size of Windows on the hard disk has increased as well. I remember installing Windows 95 on 200MB hard disks, with plenty of space left for Office 95 and other applications. Any IT manager in charge of making Windows images knows that a new version of Vista is going to be larger than its XP counterpart. Not only is this true of Windows, but of most software application packages as well.

    Overall, Vista does have a lot of new changes. However, there is not too much there holding a customer back from upgrading. Many of the new features in Vista can be turned off and disabled if they can't be tested or get in the way, leaving you with a very XP-like user experience. Vista supports almost all of the group policies that XP does when it comes to being managed through AD. There are several new ways of deploying Vista images as well, with free Microsoft tools, but, there is nothing stopping you from using your existing tools either (Ghost, etc).

    This statement looks like Dell spreading is FUD to cover their tracks for another upcoming quarter where they will have poor financial results. They can then blame "slow adaptation of Vista" as a reason for slow hardware sales.
  • Waiting for SP1? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fdisk-o (754721) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:57AM (#19754913)
    From TFA: "he denied that there is a widespread feeling that it is better to wait for Service Pack 1"

        I'm not sure who might be saying that they are not waiting for a service pack before Vista deployment for their business. It's certainly none of the people I've been speaking with. Due to the number of problems with application compatibility, the problems with Vista itself, and the nearly non-existant benefit to my business that Vista would provide, I will be waiting for SP1. At the time that SP1 is released, more time will have passed so that our application vendors will have re-written or updated their code to match Vista's changes. We'll also have less of an expenditure for new equipment to meet Vista's hungry requirements since we're constantly retiring older computers and purchasing nearly top-level systems to replace them. We will _not_ be transitioning to gain access to any new "features" that Vista provides, rather, we will transition because we can no longer buy computers with XP installed. Even though Vista provides some positive enhancements to application/OS separation, we have found that user education is vastly superior to feel-good allow/deny prompts that an uneducated user will botch every time. It's more work, sure, and would be a significant effort with a company larger than our 90+users, but the savings come in time. The "trusted computing" and DRM features within Vista allow _much_ greater control of the computer to be given to the software vendor than any reasonable sysadmin would be comfortable with. Due to these concerns and others, my company has been exploring a move for all users to Linux and MacOS. I know of several other 100+ employee local companies that are doing the same.
  • by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Thursday July 05 2007, @05:42PM (#19760091) Homepage
    Microsoft has now ADMITTED that the National Security Agency had two sets of teams - "red" to determine how to break in, and "blue" to "assist" in designing Vista security - working on Vista.

    This means, of course, to anyone with a brain, that the NSA figured out X ways to break into Vista - and told Microsoft about X - n of them (pick your numbers, the idea is the same.)

    This means that any government or foreign corporation who uses Vista has just handed the farm to the NSA.

    Anybody outside of the US - and any moron inside the US - who uses Vista has to have their head examined.

    Oh, sure, the NSA doesn't care about me, or you, so they aren't probing our boxes - right?

    Right.

    This is way worse than the old story about the hidden "NSA keys" - at least that time Microsoft didn't admit that the NSA had actively been invited to break Windows security (although I wouldn't be surprised if they had been and did.)

    People who compare this to SELinux simply don't know what they're talking about. There's no comparison whatsoever, as SELinux is open source.
    • So.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 05 2007, @09:34AM (#19753897)

      From the TFA..
      "We are not here to promote Microsoft and tell people they should buy it. We can show them the advantages of Vista and what they need to put in place to begin to move across. "

      "Vista is big and complex and there is a lot to it. It requires a lot of testing. You can't just shut off XP on Friday and start Vista on Monday morning. There will be training. There are things to learn."

      and then..

      "However, he still thinks that business should go ahead with the migration and not wait for Microsoft to release its first service pack."
      He wants clients to upgrade to Vista, buy new hardware AND not blame Dell if any thing goes wrong.
      • I run a small business

        I hear the word Vista and I cringe. There is no way I would ever switch over. XP works on all our machines without upgrades. I just don't see enough (any) benefit to moving to vista and we won't be doing it.

        I can't imagine the head aches for a large corporation trying to move. Wow. Crazy. I'll say it again. Wow.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            >>Wow, well good luck with your business. You've ruled it out without even evaluating it. Personally I think the tightened security alone is worth the upgrade. Now application developers will be forced to follow best practices, unless they want their app triggering UAC constantly.

            He did evaluate it. Didn't you read about the part where he saw no benefit? It implies that he did look for benefits. Furthermore, if XP is doing the job on his current hardware why should he switch?

            You claim security is t
    • Re:hmmm ... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Nijika (525558) on Thursday July 05 2007, @09:35AM (#19753901) Homepage Journal
      Or is it a hedge against a rush of demand with supply failing causing clients to go to other sources than Dell? Imagine you've got 1000000 computers and 2000000 sticks of 512MB RAM. Then comes Vista. That's an oversimplification, but I believe it's also quite valid. It would be better to stagger the upgrades than lose clients to other vendors that might have the supplies to serve demands faster.
      • Re:hmmm ... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by jkrise (535370) on Thursday July 05 2007, @10:16AM (#19754385) Journal
        Imagine you've got 1000000 computers and 2000000 sticks of 512MB RAM. Then comes Vista.

        That's a million PCs. With the amount of money required to license and maintain the beast called Vista on a million PCs, I'd rather pay RedHat or Canonical to give me a customised OS for the lot - and switch over to Web-based apps. Yes, it's a big ask... .but it would be a one-time investment, and one single learning curve.

        By the time it takes to get a million users get trained on UAC, IE7, Office 2007 and the support guys figure out how to get these running... the CIO could confdently move to Phase 2 with Linux-based web services, CRM, Business Intelligence etc. The army of MCSEs can be sent to Dell to support unfortunate CIOs stuck with Vista.
        • Re:hmmm ... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by kestasjk (933987) on Thursday July 05 2007, @12:50PM (#19756465) Homepage

          By the time it takes to get a million users get trained on UAC, IE7, Office 2007 and the support guys figure out how to get these running... the CIO could confdently move to Phase 2 with Linux-based web services, CRM, Business Intelligence etc. The army of MCSEs can be sent to Dell to support unfortunate CIOs stuck with Vista.
          I don't know what "Phase 2" is, or what CRM and "Business Intelligence" mean in that context, but I do know that it's easier to teach people to use User Access Controls, Internet Explorer 7, and Office 2007 than to design and implement an entirely new platform and teach people to use the new platform.

          The post was meant to be funny right?
      • RAM isn't enough (Score:5, Informative)

        by Rob Y. (110975) on Thursday July 05 2007, @12:59PM (#19756569)
        A friend just bought a new Compaq notebook with Vista (home basic) and 512MB of RAM. It was dog slow, especially booting up, so I had him add RAM. Still slow as hell with 1.5GB.

        This thing has a Sempron processor, but c'mon. I've never seen a speed issue on Windows that couldn't be fixed by throwing RAM at it... until now.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Same deal -- I know a friend who bought a Compaq laptop with Vista on it... he was telling me over the phone that his computer was acting up and he couldn't e-mail me the file 'cuz his computer was running too slowly... here I thought he had some old clunker. No, this is a brand new PC running the OS that it came with, the opened box still sitting in the same room. Since when have companies been shipping computers that are slow when they come out of the box?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Nope. XP ran perfectly fine on my 512MB 900MHz Duron Windows 98SE machine back in 2001. Of course, I've upgraded the machine since then, but it handled XP with no problems.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        and vista runs perfectly fine on my 3 year old 3.0 Ghz P4 with 1 gb of ram. and an ati 9600 pro video card... and XP ran great on my system back when I got it (P3 1 Ghz, with 256MB Ram). back in 95 people were complaining about having to upgrade their 386s and 486s for windows 95. Is this a new phenomenon to release an operating system that works best on the higher end systems of the day, and not so good on the lower end systems of the day? nope. heck windows 3.1 didn't care too much for XTs either.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        At my previous work, I switched from NT4 to 2K in 2005 after a very painfull and expensive 2 years migration effort (almost every program or third party library had to be upgraded and large parts of our code in both production and tool apps needed heavy changes).
        The main reason for the migration was that we couldn't buy NT4 licenses anymore, 2K superiority being very marginal in the decision.
      • yeah, but don't forget, most people aren't running quake and office at the same time. The graphics complexity is because it has to be very quick at what appears, and it has to retain that quickness regardless of what the user is up to. That becomes a very heavy task with say, 88% cpu load and 10 windows open, and you drag something,etc.