An anonymous reader writes "John is at it again, this time with his take on the launch of Microsoft's Vista operating system. John covers the reality from a market perspective, looking at whether the release will affect PC sales, peripherals ... or even Microsoft." From the article: "While there is no way that Vista will be a flop, since all new computers will come with Vista pre-installed, there seems to be no excitement level at all. And there does not seem to be any compelling reason for people to upgrade to Vista. In fact, the observers I chat with who follow corporate licensing do not see any large installations of Windows-based computers upgrading anytime soon. The word I keep hearing is 'stagnation.' Industry manufacturers are not too thrilled either. One CEO who supplies a critical component for all computers says he sees a normal fourth quarter then nothing special in the first quarter for the segment. Dullsville."
Hey, he's right about the system idle process. It doesn't make sense but every once in a while my computer just freezes and nothing happens for quite a long period of time. The symptom is that the system idle process shows as consuming all the cycles. I know it isn't doing anything, but neither are any of the other processes, and they should be.
When it's in that state, it's entirely in kernel mode, pulling things off the swap that it shouldn't have put there to begin with. It just drops back to the idle process while it waits for the hard drive to scratch the magnetic particles off the platter.
Honestly, I know of no other OS which WASTES so much time and tries so hard to overwork hardware than Windows' bad virtual memory manager.
Vista -- the operating system that Hollywood and the music industry designed.
Does this mean we'll finally get one of those nifty GUIs where the fonts are fixed at 36-point and above, all text appears one letter at a time, applications are always maximized, and the search function flashes thumbnails of every file that doesn't match as it goes through the index?
When you have an entire industry where pretty much only one company supplies a critical part, the entire industry is dependent on that one company. It would be nice to get away from the single-supplier issue, much like there are two major suppliers for processors, a half-dozen dozen chipset makers and so on.
I've seen and worked with vista already. Here were my impressions.
It is really hard to lose your work. It is really easy to find your files.
It is a lot prettier.
The GUI for the system has been re-engineered and it is easier to use. Other applications have been rewritten to have the same look and feel so that the system as a whole will be easier to use.
Sorry to break it to you, but Windows's security model is now superior to Linux's. Like in Unix, you can now run as a regular user and only raise to admin permissions when required. The permission system has finer granularity and can more easily be controlled from a central server. Internet Explorer 7 runs inside a sandbox, unlike Linux web browsers. And not only do you have more power, it can be managed more easily by nonexperts using GUIs instead of text files. Realistically, Vista will still be much more worm-infested than Linux but this will be mainly attributable to market share.
As for stability, there's no reason to expect Vista will be less stable than XP upon release (i.e. at least weeks of uptime).
That Linux is better than Windows "under the hood" was only true in the 9x/ME days. To be sure, there are differences of approach -- Windows is monolithic, Linux distributions are made of loosely connected components; Windows is GUI-based with CLI tacked on, Linux is CLI-based with GUI tacked on; Windows maintains binary backwards compatibility, Linux forces recompilation. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, and it's hard to see that one is clearly better than the other.
Sorry to break it to you, but Windows's security model is now superior to Linux's.
Windows' permissions system has always been superior to that of Unix. Sure, there's POSIX ACLs, but no one uses them and user tools to manage them are just not there as they are on Windows. The masking system used on Unix is just stupid. The fact that a file can only be associated with one group or user is pathetic. The fact that a file must be owned by a user and cannot simply be owned by a group is ridiculous. And finally, while NT has both permit and deny permissions, Unix has only permit. I cannot for example grant full control to all developers except those who are also QA engineers, who are denied write access.
However, it is entirely possible to run any application you like inside of a sandbox on Unix systems, so that's nothing special. And while it is easier to perform superficial management tasks on windows, when you run into something the GUI doesn't cover it becomes much harder than Unix, while on Unix I can use ssh to push and execute scripts to handle border cases securely and conveniently. This functionality is present on NT but not as easy to use or as reliable.
That Linux is better than Windows "under the hood" was only true in the 9x/ME days.
Unless you've done a line by line source code comparison of the two operating systems, you are not qualified to make this statement. Certainly Linux still behaves as if it were more robust underneath than NT; try putting both systems under heavy load, using up all their memory, etc etc and see what happens, see which one is more usable, see which one you can recover and which one you end up applying the BRS to.
Although I agree, under the hood Linux is much more trustworthy as their is no mystery involved.
People in general do like the interface that Microsoft provides and after working with Office 2007 on my XP box I'm quite pleased with the shift, everything is up front and easy to find. The only problems I tend to have are not recognizing the plain English words that cover the functions I wish to perform. I'm so trained in having to hunt for the Microsoft query tool that I don't notice it's right in front of m
Users are used to Windows. They are used to the programs that they use in Windows. Why should they change? they don't buy Windows, they buy a computer...with Windows.
That's a popular theory, but it smells dubious. So I tested it at one site - all the desktops had OpenOffice, Thunderbird, and Firefox on them when they were first installed, and not Outlook or MS Office, and IE was carefully disabled (if it had been a problem, we could have had Office installed later without any trouble).
That site has now been running for over a year.
Several of the users never even noticed that they weren't using MS-ware. None of them cared. There has been no need to install any other applications on any of the desktops.
(We're now planning to deploy Linux desktops at the next new site, and not waste any more money on Windows licenses)
On reflection, the flaw in the theory becomes obvious. Every version of Windows and Office behaves differently. Every Windows box behaves differently after it's been running for 12 months and is starting to get clogged up with worms and spyware. Users are used to computers that don't behave consistently. Why should they care about a version that's slightly different again? They really don't. Most users don't pay any attention to details.
I speculate that the people who moan about how free software "isn't ready" are just trying to justify a political position. My message to them: shut up and get on with your job. Windows and Office aren't ready either, but that's never stopped you before.
I think Microsoft made a big mistake by releasing Vista to businesses first. I think consumers are somewhat excited about Vista or will be when the majority of them actually see Aero in action. In general, businesses don't need Vista or care about the new thing because however you want to package it, its going to cost them more money. The only thing accurate about this article is that Vista will not be a flop because it won't be long before you can only buy a new computer with Vista on it. As that happens, and as more computers get into the hands of consumers, business will have to catch up.
by Anonymous Coward
on Thursday November 30 2006, @02:28PM (#17053744)
> Vista will not be a flop because it won't be long before...
Vista can be the Edsel of computers.
The Edsel was the best Big American Car. It had all the features and acessories that were available, including some that were novel. It was overhyped and was delivered late.
The problem was not so much the car itself, or the marketing, but that the public decided it did not want a Big American Car, but wanted a compact or a foreign import, or more to the point, two small cars instead of one big one.
Vista is trying to be everything - a computer, a media centre, a games machine, internet access, telephone, all in one with every feature.
But only one person can use it at a time. Just like a Big American Car it lacks flexibility because it can only have one driver. For the same price as one 'all doing' Vista machine with Office and all the bells and whistles, you should be able to buy 2 or more 'foreign imports' (linux) or 'compacts' (like a miniMac) and/or recycle existing machines and link them together so that the family can all access everything they want without queuing for it.
Some years ago Bill Gates noted a survey that found that in most homes the TV and the computer were in the same room. He concluded that this meant that people wanted these to be integrated as one unit. No. Bill, it is because most families don't have 22 room mansions and because _some_ want to watch the one TV while others use the one computer, they don't all have a TV and a computer each.
Is it really that difficult for you to give credit where credit is due, Zonk? Not only did you take the exact same title as my journal entry [slashdot.org], you put the submission down to an anonymous reader. Throw in that you kept the exact same first line I used and your bias shows through.
Seriously Zonk, if you're never going to accept stories from me while you're on duty, at least have the guts to email me and tell me. It will save us both time and effort. This nonsense is just childish.
Is it really that difficult for you to give credit where credit is due, Zonk? Not only did you take the exact same title as my journal entry, you put the submission down to an anonymous reader. Throw in that you kept the exact same first line I used and your bias shows through.
You do know, of course, that it's possible to submit other people's journal entries as stories, right? That any user could have ripped off your journal entry?
Assign blame where blame is due... and until you know for sure that no one else could have possibly ripped off your entry, don't blame Zonk. I suggest looking at your fans list as the prime list of suspects, since they are the people most likely to read your journal.
Or do you think that Zonk spends his day combing through journal entries looking for entries he can rip off without attribution as stories?
The lack of "buzz" around Vista and apathy towards upgrading - despite its myriad improvements - are a tacit acknowledgement of just how good Windows 2000 and XP were(/are)...
All the pointy hair types I meet seem to know all about it. Was there a massive golf and martini day I wasn't told about somewhere in the UK? Has there been one day recently when *all* of your senior management - and everyone else's - went missing?
I'd call it brainwashing but that isn't very plausible considering the target audience;)
A lot of corporate entities didn't upgrade to XP from 200 for a few years either. Some places STILL run a significant number of 2000 workstations and some servers.
Of course people are still running Windows 2000. What features does XP have that make the work of your IT staff any easier? What programs do you really need to run for business purposes that run on Windows XP and not Windows 2000? In what way does Windows XP offer a significant improvement to productivity? How will the purchase of Windows XP licenses result in saving your company money? If you can't answer these questions definitively, then there's probably no reason to upgrade.
Good IT people are practical, and won't want to upgrade to the newest thing just because it's new. Along with everything else, new software usually brings new problems, which require new bug-fixes and work-arounds. Windows 2000 and Office 2000 make a great combo, and don't require inconvenient activation schemes. Sometimes it's better to stick with the devil you know.
Ok
They are not hyping the launch
They are not trying to stuff it down your throat
They are making an OS that takes advantage of next gen hardware to improve performance further
Why is all this a bad thing that deserves to be berated like Dvorak does??
I am writing this on Vista, and as far as I have seen and read - this seems like a pretty solid release (where things are done right albeit the microsoft way) with lots and lots of potential.
At the end of the day, the operating system's purpose is really to give me access to my programs. On Windows, that means a lot, but I'm fairly happy with the way XP does it. The people who should care about major OS changes ought to be the developers; a new OS changes the rules of the game they play. In general, I don't want to shell out $200 for another OS, as long as the one I have is doing its job.
I've talked to a couple of my friends, and they are not very impressed by what they see in Vista in terms of new tools for the developers. Major changes, yes, but few of them practically interesting, in the sense that they either serve such a small subset of programs that they won't be used by the average developer or there already exists a perfectly reasonable way to do the job in Windows XP. Just as I don't want to buy a new interface if my current one is acceptable, they don't want to have to re-invent wheels just because all the 'fooX' functions are now 'barX' functions.
GNU/Linux is a little different; since the operating system is available cost-free, there's no disincentive to immediately adopting upgrades (except for instability, which is probably the biggest issue with new developments and is also shared by the must-be-purchased OS's). But with Windows, they need to really convince me that there's some truly profound new way of talking to my applications that I just gotta try.
I feel like we've reached a design plateau with both Windows XP and MacOSX these days. They both do what they do extremely well, and most of the other needs can be satisfied by the applications themselves without changing the OS. Until I'm given a very good reason to pay money to learn a new way of talking to my programs, I'll hold off, thanks.
Since Windows XP doesn't suck as much as the previous versions of Windows that users were dying to get rid of there will not be that much excitement about it.
While there is no way that Vista will be a flop, since all new computers will come with Vista pre-installed, there seems to be no excitement level at all. And there does not seem to be any compelling reason for people to upgrade to Vista.
Looks like MS will have to rely on their monopoly alone to sell Vista. Their marketing can't help them this time.
In fact, the observers I chat with who follow corporate licensing do not see any large installations of Windows-based computers upgrading anytime soon. The word I keep hearing is "stagnation."
Corporations don't see any benefit to upgrade either. They've been burned by SA and security issues. They've gotten their Windows environments stable and they are not going to mess with them.
Industry manufacturers are not too thrilled either. One CEO who supplies a critical component for all computers says he sees a normal fourth quarter then nothing special in the first quarter for the segment. Dullsville.
There's not much for them to sell to the consumers either. "Look a new Start menu!" isn't getting much interest.
This is further complicated by a confusing array of Vista offerings. There is Vista Home Basic, Vista Starter, Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate.
Simplicity sells better to the average joe. That's why the iPod has the click-wheel. That's why auto makers have only one model in each category.
One of the interesting things I'm seeing is the relative ignorance of the computer-using public in general about the system requirements for Vista.
The public doesn't know (and MS probably does want them to know) that to really see the benefits of Vista, they can't use the basic $500 computer. They need the $2000+ model.
First of all, we wait for at least a year of patching before trusting a MS product. Second, Vista is a huge resource hog. We see no reason to waste that much RAM, CPU cycles for prettier windows that don't do more. Third, price. The costs to upgrade company wide a effing astronomical. For what, a bug-filled (I'll call it a safe assumption) resource hog?
This is also coming from someone who is generally likes Windows XP. XP has become a pretty stable OS that is familiar and works well. So far Vista has offered nothing that makes us want to even know more about it. Heck, you could figure out how to display the desktop in 5D or shut it down 42 different ways for all I care, I want my RAM back!
Vista, to the average consumer, is just a visual upgrade from XP and with large performance hits to boot.
This is just like Windows ME was comparatively to Windows 98; a few extra features with nothing noteworthy, and performance hits.
If history repeats itself then a new server edition of windows will come out in about 2 years and then 2 years following that we will have another version of Windows whose features and stability will be welcome by all (except the obligatory anti-windows folk)
Most of the new features in Windows Vista that (I would argue) make it worth upgrading to, are not aimed at enterprise users, but at the average home PC user. Although most of the really interesting new stuff in the user interface was ripped straight out of OS X 10.4, these changes alone do mark a major improvement over XP. Quartz's ability to offload to the GPU much of the processing needed for window management was a major factor in my switch to the Mac a few years ago, and it's nice that Windows users will finally have something similar (albeit apparently more resource-hungry) on their machines.
While the new security features of Vista (especially the 64-bit version) are a good thing all-around, they're more of a factor for home users of the operating system than they are for large companies with corresponding IT departments to carefully secure and administer their computers. Microsoft's built-in malware scanner and improved firewall are a big step forward for Mr. PC Owner, but any decent enterprise deployment of Windows should already be behind a firewall and an anti-virus system. And in fact, insofar as most corporate Vista deployments will require a licensing server to keep Microsoft placated (bringing with it the looming possibility of a WGA malfunction), Vista is in some ways a step backward for enterprise users.
I think the general public reception of Vista will be positive - partially due to the "Oh, it's so shiny!" factor, and partially due to some real improvements under the hood - but I agree that enterprise adoption of the operating system will probably start slow.
But considering they've yet again linked to useless Dvorak drivel, I guess I'll comment on the topic.
John is treading in pretty "safe" territory with these comments. Vista really isn't exciting very many people. But at this point in the game, does it make any difference? Microsoft could release practically anything as a new OS update, and within 2-3 years, the majority of computer users will be running it - even if absolutely *none* of them voluntarily purchased it as an upgrade. As long as it comes preloaded on the vast majority of new computers purchased (and it does), they're keeping users on their migration path.
I just got out of a technical meeting at my workplace this morning, and one of our discussions topics was the I.T. budget for 2007. It was universally agreed (with very little debate) that there's nothing compelling about spending money to upgrade our computer hardware (all Pentium 4 class systems with between 512MB and 1GB of RAM). We also agreed that it would be wasteful to spend money upgrading to Vista in 2007, since we're currently on XP Pro and it does everything we need. In the case of Office 2007, the only reason we'd upgrade to it is in response to receiving too many documents from our customers that were created in Office '07. Until that happens, it's a total waste of money for us to move to it.
I can't see how many businesses out there would conclude otherwise? With the migration from Windows 2000 to XP, there were a few "drivers" that compelled people. One big one was better, more user-friendly wireless networking support. That, alone, made my laptop upgrade from 2000 to XP a big improvement. (You still can't even use WPA type wireless encryption in Win2K without 3rd. party software add-ons.)
But with Vista, you've got new toolbars and eye-candy (some of which costs extra in terms of higher-end gaphics hardware to make use of it), and apparently a more complicated and restrictive EULA to boot. The things that would have cost-justified the product, at least in the eyes of corporate customers, were largely canned (such as the initially promised "revolutionary new file system"), and instead, we get things like more restrictive DRM for digital music. This makes it an upgrade you're forced to accept, rather than one you *want*.
I work in a school, and as such we have an MS Schools License Agreement, which entitles us to all the latest Microsoft software for a reletively cheap price (I think £30ish a workstation).
We're expecting delivery of our Office 2007 and Vista discs in either the December or January licensing packs. While we may test them around the office, a network-wide deployment (about 350 machines total) of Vista won't even be considered till after SP1 is released. Not to mention all the poorly-written educational software that will need compatability testing on the new OS. Due to the training requirements of Office 2007 I probably can't see that being rolled out till 2008 at the earliest either - especially with the admin staff, since a lot of their applications tie directly into Office and they use it all day, ever day. The training requirements for that alone would cause so many headaches for us to support.
Many people I know who work at other schools in our area aren't even considering an upgrade yet or in the near future. XP works just fine for now and the forseeable future. My school is lucky in that we have a large IT budget and have mostly up-to-date PCs (enough for what they do on them anyway), other schools in my area are still running 333MHz/128MB RAM machines - not exactly the powerhouse needed to run Vista at a reasonable level.
You're right, the reasons to upgrade your kernel are not always obvious (until e.g. a 2.6 major release version or something) and the benefits are not always tangible.
But the good news is that upgrading the various Linuces is pretty much as easy as "yum upgrade" or the equivalent. So you don't have to fret and stress over whether it'll be worth it.
When nobody knows how the internals really work, the process involves considerable risk.
But the good news is that upgrading the various Linuces is pretty much as easy as "yum upgrade" or the equivalent. So you don't have to fret and stress over whether it'll be worth it.
With the Ubuntu 6.10 release comes a whole host of excellent new features. Improvements have been made all around, such as faster system boot up times, faster GNOME start up times, improvements to the user interface, a shiny new optimized kernel, GNOME 2.16, and much, much more.
And from the originally linked story it is clear not everyone had such a transparent and generally delightful time of the upgrade as you.
I disagree. Let's take the two latest and the upcoming release of OS X as an example:
10.3 Exposé, FileVault
10.4 Spotlight, Dashboard
10.5 Time Machine, Spaces
Every new release have had tons of new features that have actually been useful. If Microsoft has troubles adding new useful features to their OS, that does not mean that others have the same problem. Don't judge other operating systems based how Microsoft is doing.
It may not be "necessary" (in the hunter-gatherer sense of the word) to ever upgrade software, but that doesn't mean there's no reason to do so. Sometimes new versions have really useful features. New versions of Linux software (it's not quite right to focus solely on the kernel) are often beneficial, and every new Apple cat-named release has offered increased speed and stability, while also including new features.
Now, sure there are people who won't benefit from the upgrade. For example, if you're a Ma
To be fair, the new version of the kernel in Vista has some interesting features and changes as well. I don't have time to enumerate them right now, but it's worth saying.
However you're certainly right that upgrading my Linux kernel is generally easy, and can be done without updating the entire OS. This is one of many things that makes Windows annoying >:(
That is what is wrong. The parent posted FACTS (that he was going to get Vista, along with most everyone else) and since it isn't pro-FOSS its considered fud.
I like/. because I can get tech news with some occasional informed/insightful debate on the topic. However, I'm reading the comments less and less because of people like you that can get modded insightful for comments that have ZERO pertinence to the topic. Its no wonder that every year is the "year of the linux desktop" on/. because you have a safe little niche of like minded zealots that will agree with you unconditionally.
Its narrow minded sentiment like this that actually keeps people from switching to linux and its surrounding projects. You called the man a fool for stating a FACT. Instead of negative sentiment about M$ why not just give the reasons/FACTS of why linux and FOSS is a better solution. The results might surprise you, unless the only result that you expect from your generosity is for the people you to help to gain your zealotness.
Go ahead and mod me whatever, I've got karma to burn from making insightful posts...
Wrong. Dvorak persistently gets fundamental, entry-level facts wrong about the matters he reports. There is also a video (I'm too lazy to link it) in which he confesses that his main purpose in writing is to piss people off and drive traffic.
Paul Thurott is an example of someone with a favorable opinion of MS, whose opinion is generally respected here because it is usually well-researched
He's an asshat who used to make up wild predictions for Byte magazine in order to help sell copies. Now he makes up wild predictions for lots of people in order to help get ad impressions. I really like the title of this column, though: "JOHN DVORAK'S SECOND OPINION" I wonder what his first opinion was?
Dvorak... Reality... ??? (Score:5, Funny)
Is this the same Dvorak we've all come to know and love [slashdot.org]? Who thinks Microsoft should buy Opera [slashdot.org], that CSS doesn't work [slashdot.org] because he couldn't figure out what "cascading" meant, and admits to trolling Mac users [slashdot.org]?
Oh, wait, he's making disparaging remarks about Microsoft! I'm sorry I ever doubted you, John!
Re:Dvorak... Reality... ??? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dvorak... Reality... ??? (Score:5, Interesting)
When it's in that state, it's entirely in kernel mode, pulling things off the swap that it shouldn't have put there to begin with. It just drops back to the idle process while it waits for the hard drive to scratch the magnetic particles off the platter.
Honestly, I know of no other OS which WASTES so much time and tries so hard to overwork hardware than Windows' bad virtual memory manager.
Parent
Re:Dvorak... Reality... ??? (Score:4, Funny)
"TRACEROUTE NOT WORKING. Traceroute, or TRACERT on my machine, now goes three hops and times out. I can't trace anything."
This guy is like a tech support troll. "That patch you installed killed my mouse! Get down here and fix it!"
Parent
Viewer Friendly Interface (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean we'll finally get one of those nifty GUIs where the fonts are fixed at 36-point and above, all text appears one letter at a time, applications are always maximized, and the search function flashes thumbnails of every file that doesn't match as it goes through the index?
Parent
PS (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't that the problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft needs a better marketing strategy... (Score:4, Funny)
Though he's right (Score:5, Informative)
It is really hard to lose your work. It is really easy to find your files.
It is a lot prettier.
The GUI for the system has been re-engineered and it is easier to use. Other applications have been rewritten to have the same look and feel so that the system as a whole will be easier to use.
It was not stable when I used it.
Re:Though he's right (Score:5, Insightful)
How does this fit with this without creating a universe-shattinger paradox?
Parent
Re:Though he's right (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry to break it to you, but Windows's security model is now superior to Linux's. Like in Unix, you can now run as a regular user and only raise to admin permissions when required. The permission system has finer granularity and can more easily be controlled from a central server. Internet Explorer 7 runs inside a sandbox, unlike Linux web browsers. And not only do you have more power, it can be managed more easily by nonexperts using GUIs instead of text files. Realistically, Vista will still be much more worm-infested than Linux but this will be mainly attributable to market share.
As for stability, there's no reason to expect Vista will be less stable than XP upon release (i.e. at least weeks of uptime).
That Linux is better than Windows "under the hood" was only true in the 9x/ME days. To be sure, there are differences of approach -- Windows is monolithic, Linux distributions are made of loosely connected components; Windows is GUI-based with CLI tacked on, Linux is CLI-based with GUI tacked on; Windows maintains binary backwards compatibility, Linux forces recompilation. Each approach has advantages and disadvantages, and it's hard to see that one is clearly better than the other.
Parent
Re:Though he's right (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows' permissions system has always been superior to that of Unix. Sure, there's POSIX ACLs, but no one uses them and user tools to manage them are just not there as they are on Windows. The masking system used on Unix is just stupid. The fact that a file can only be associated with one group or user is pathetic. The fact that a file must be owned by a user and cannot simply be owned by a group is ridiculous. And finally, while NT has both permit and deny permissions, Unix has only permit. I cannot for example grant full control to all developers except those who are also QA engineers, who are denied write access.
However, it is entirely possible to run any application you like inside of a sandbox on Unix systems, so that's nothing special. And while it is easier to perform superficial management tasks on windows, when you run into something the GUI doesn't cover it becomes much harder than Unix, while on Unix I can use ssh to push and execute scripts to handle border cases securely and conveniently. This functionality is present on NT but not as easy to use or as reliable.
Unless you've done a line by line source code comparison of the two operating systems, you are not qualified to make this statement. Certainly Linux still behaves as if it were more robust underneath than NT; try putting both systems under heavy load, using up all their memory, etc etc and see what happens, see which one is more usable, see which one you can recover and which one you end up applying the BRS to.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Although I agree, under the hood Linux is much more trustworthy as their is no mystery involved.
People in general do like the interface that Microsoft provides and after working with Office 2007 on my XP box I'm quite pleased with the shift, everything is up front and easy to find. The only problems I tend to have are not recognizing the plain English words that cover the functions I wish to perform. I'm so trained in having to hunt for the Microsoft query tool that I don't notice it's right in front of m
Re:Though he's right (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a popular theory, but it smells dubious. So I tested it at one site - all the desktops had OpenOffice, Thunderbird, and Firefox on them when they were first installed, and not Outlook or MS Office, and IE was carefully disabled (if it had been a problem, we could have had Office installed later without any trouble).
That site has now been running for over a year.
Several of the users never even noticed that they weren't using MS-ware. None of them cared. There has been no need to install any other applications on any of the desktops.
(We're now planning to deploy Linux desktops at the next new site, and not waste any more money on Windows licenses)
On reflection, the flaw in the theory becomes obvious. Every version of Windows and Office behaves differently. Every Windows box behaves differently after it's been running for 12 months and is starting to get clogged up with worms and spyware. Users are used to computers that don't behave consistently. Why should they care about a version that's slightly different again? They really don't. Most users don't pay any attention to details.
I speculate that the people who moan about how free software "isn't ready" are just trying to justify a political position. My message to them: shut up and get on with your job. Windows and Office aren't ready either, but that's never stopped you before.
For home users, who cares? I don't.
Parent
"there seems to be no excitement level at all" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd hope that this corporate pre-release makes for a much smoother public release of Vista.
Re:"there seems to be no excitement level at all" (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista can be the Edsel of computers.
The Edsel was the best Big American Car. It had all the features and acessories that were available, including some that were novel. It was overhyped and was delivered late.
The problem was not so much the car itself, or the marketing, but that the public decided it did not want a Big American Car, but wanted a compact or a foreign import, or more to the point, two small cars instead of one big one.
Vista is trying to be everything - a computer, a media centre, a games machine, internet access, telephone, all in one with every feature.
But only one person can use it at a time. Just like a Big American Car it lacks flexibility because it can only have one driver. For the same price as one 'all doing' Vista machine with Office and all the bells and whistles, you should be able to buy 2 or more 'foreign imports' (linux) or 'compacts' (like a miniMac) and/or recycle existing machines and link them together so that the family can all access everything they want without queuing for it.
Some years ago Bill Gates noted a survey that found that in most homes the TV and the computer were in the same room. He concluded that this meant that people wanted these to be integrated as one unit. No. Bill, it is because most families don't have 22 room mansions and because _some_ want to watch the one TV while others use the one computer, they don't all have a TV and a computer each.
Parent
Zonk does it again! (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously Zonk, if you're never going to accept stories from me while you're on duty, at least have the guts to email me and tell me. It will save us both time and effort. This nonsense is just childish.
Re:Zonk does it again! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Zonk does it again! (Score:4, Insightful)
Assign blame where blame is due... and until you know for sure that no one else could have possibly ripped off your entry, don't blame Zonk. I suggest looking at your fans list as the prime list of suspects, since they are the people most likely to read your journal.
Or do you think that Zonk spends his day combing through journal entries looking for entries he can rip off without attribution as stories?
Grow up.
Parent
Effectively... (Score:4, Insightful)
The lack of "buzz" around Vista and apathy towards upgrading - despite its myriad improvements - are a tacit acknowledgement of just how good Windows 2000 and XP were(/are)...
Im not so sure (Score:4, Funny)
I'd call it brainwashing but that isn't very plausible considering the target audience
Took a while for XP also (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Took a while for XP also (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course people are still running Windows 2000. What features does XP have that make the work of your IT staff any easier? What programs do you really need to run for business purposes that run on Windows XP and not Windows 2000? In what way does Windows XP offer a significant improvement to productivity? How will the purchase of Windows XP licenses result in saving your company money? If you can't answer these questions definitively, then there's probably no reason to upgrade.
Good IT people are practical, and won't want to upgrade to the newest thing just because it's new. Along with everything else, new software usually brings new problems, which require new bug-fixes and work-arounds. Windows 2000 and Office 2000 make a great combo, and don't require inconvenient activation schemes. Sometimes it's better to stick with the devil you know.
Parent
This looks right - why bad mouth it? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the applications, stupid (Score:5, Interesting)
I've talked to a couple of my friends, and they are not very impressed by what they see in Vista in terms of new tools for the developers. Major changes, yes, but few of them practically interesting, in the sense that they either serve such a small subset of programs that they won't be used by the average developer or there already exists a perfectly reasonable way to do the job in Windows XP. Just as I don't want to buy a new interface if my current one is acceptable, they don't want to have to re-invent wheels just because all the 'fooX' functions are now 'barX' functions.
GNU/Linux is a little different; since the operating system is available cost-free, there's no disincentive to immediately adopting upgrades (except for instability, which is probably the biggest issue with new developments and is also shared by the must-be-purchased OS's). But with Windows, they need to really convince me that there's some truly profound new way of talking to my applications that I just gotta try.
I feel like we've reached a design plateau with both Windows XP and MacOSX these days. They both do what they do extremely well, and most of the other needs can be satisfied by the applications themselves without changing the OS. Until I'm given a very good reason to pay money to learn a new way of talking to my programs, I'll hold off, thanks.
XP doesn't suck as much as previous versions (Score:3, Insightful)
Translation (Score:4, Interesting)
Looks like MS will have to rely on their monopoly alone to sell Vista. Their marketing can't help them this time.
Corporations don't see any benefit to upgrade either. They've been burned by SA and security issues. They've gotten their Windows environments stable and they are not going to mess with them.
There's not much for them to sell to the consumers either. "Look a new Start menu!" isn't getting much interest.
Simplicity sells better to the average joe. That's why the iPod has the click-wheel. That's why auto makers have only one model in each category.
The public doesn't know (and MS probably does want them to know) that to really see the benefits of Vista, they can't use the basic $500 computer. They need the $2000+ model.
I for one... (Score:4, Interesting)
know our company will not be upgrading soon.
First of all, we wait for at least a year of patching before trusting a MS product. Second, Vista is a huge resource hog. We see no reason to waste that much RAM, CPU cycles for prettier windows that don't do more. Third, price. The costs to upgrade company wide a effing astronomical. For what, a bug-filled (I'll call it a safe assumption) resource hog?
This is also coming from someone who is generally likes Windows XP. XP has become a pretty stable OS that is familiar and works well. So far Vista has offered nothing that makes us want to even know more about it. Heck, you could figure out how to display the desktop in 5D or shut it down 42 different ways for all I care, I want my RAM back!
Visa = ME (Score:3, Interesting)
This is just like Windows ME was comparatively to Windows 98; a few extra features with nothing noteworthy, and performance hits.
If history repeats itself then a new server edition of windows will come out in about 2 years and then 2 years following that we will have another version of Windows whose features and stability will be welcome by all (except the obligatory anti-windows folk)
Upgrade-worthy features are aimed at end users (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the new features in Windows Vista that (I would argue) make it worth upgrading to, are not aimed at enterprise users, but at the average home PC user. Although most of the really interesting new stuff in the user interface was ripped straight out of OS X 10.4, these changes alone do mark a major improvement over XP. Quartz's ability to offload to the GPU much of the processing needed for window management was a major factor in my switch to the Mac a few years ago, and it's nice that Windows users will finally have something similar (albeit apparently more resource-hungry) on their machines.
While the new security features of Vista (especially the 64-bit version) are a good thing all-around, they're more of a factor for home users of the operating system than they are for large companies with corresponding IT departments to carefully secure and administer their computers. Microsoft's built-in malware scanner and improved firewall are a big step forward for Mr. PC Owner, but any decent enterprise deployment of Windows should already be behind a firewall and an anti-virus system. And in fact, insofar as most corporate Vista deployments will require a licensing server to keep Microsoft placated (bringing with it the looming possibility of a WGA malfunction), Vista is in some ways a step backward for enterprise users.
I think the general public reception of Vista will be positive - partially due to the "Oh, it's so shiny!" factor, and partially due to some real improvements under the hood - but I agree that enterprise adoption of the operating system will probably start slow.
John is at it again? Well, so is Slashdot.... (Score:5, Interesting)
John is treading in pretty "safe" territory with these comments. Vista really isn't exciting very many people. But at this point in the game, does it make any difference? Microsoft could release practically anything as a new OS update, and within 2-3 years, the majority of computer users will be running it - even if absolutely *none* of them voluntarily purchased it as an upgrade. As long as it comes preloaded on the vast majority of new computers purchased (and it does), they're keeping users on their migration path.
I just got out of a technical meeting at my workplace this morning, and one of our discussions topics was the I.T. budget for 2007. It was universally agreed (with very little debate) that there's nothing compelling about spending money to upgrade our computer hardware (all Pentium 4 class systems with between 512MB and 1GB of RAM). We also agreed that it would be wasteful to spend money upgrading to Vista in 2007, since we're currently on XP Pro and it does everything we need. In the case of Office 2007, the only reason we'd upgrade to it is in response to receiving too many documents from our customers that were created in Office '07. Until that happens, it's a total waste of money for us to move to it.
I can't see how many businesses out there would conclude otherwise? With the migration from Windows 2000 to XP, there were a few "drivers" that compelled people. One big one was better, more user-friendly wireless networking support. That, alone, made my laptop upgrade from 2000 to XP a big improvement. (You still can't even use WPA type wireless encryption in Win2K without 3rd. party software add-ons.)
But with Vista, you've got new toolbars and eye-candy (some of which costs extra in terms of higher-end gaphics hardware to make use of it), and apparently a more complicated and restrictive EULA to boot. The things that would have cost-justified the product, at least in the eyes of corporate customers, were largely canned (such as the initially promised "revolutionary new file system"), and instead, we get things like more restrictive DRM for digital music. This makes it an upgrade you're forced to accept, rather than one you *want*.
Education sector definately not considering it... (Score:4, Interesting)
We're expecting delivery of our Office 2007 and Vista discs in either the December or January licensing packs. While we may test them around the office, a network-wide deployment (about 350 machines total) of Vista won't even be considered till after SP1 is released. Not to mention all the poorly-written educational software that will need compatability testing on the new OS. Due to the training requirements of Office 2007 I probably can't see that being rolled out till 2008 at the earliest either - especially with the admin staff, since a lot of their applications tie directly into Office and they use it all day, ever day. The training requirements for that alone would cause so many headaches for us to support.
Many people I know who work at other schools in our area aren't even considering an upgrade yet or in the near future. XP works just fine for now and the forseeable future. My school is lucky in that we have a large IT budget and have mostly up-to-date PCs (enough for what they do on them anyway), other schools in my area are still running 333MHz/128MB RAM machines - not exactly the powerhouse needed to run Vista at a reasonable level.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But the good news is that upgrading the various Linuces is pretty much as easy as "yum upgrade" or the equivalent. So you don't have to fret and stress over whether it'll be worth it.
When nobody knows how the internals really work, the process involves considerable risk.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*cough* [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, I believe Dapper and Edgy use the same version of the kernel
You are mistaken.
from the release notes [ubuntu.com]
And from the originally linked story it is clear not everyone had such a transparent and generally delightful time of the upgrade as you.
Re:Same with everything (Score:4, Interesting)
I disagree. Let's take the two latest and the upcoming release of OS X as an example:
Every new release have had tons of new features that have actually been useful. If Microsoft has troubles adding new useful features to their OS, that does not mean that others have the same problem. Don't judge other operating systems based how Microsoft is doing.
Parent
Re:Same with everything (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It may not be "necessary" (in the hunter-gatherer sense of the word) to ever upgrade software, but that doesn't mean there's no reason to do so. Sometimes new versions have really useful features. New versions of Linux software (it's not quite right to focus solely on the kernel) are often beneficial, and every new Apple cat-named release has offered increased speed and stability, while also including new features.
Now, sure there are people who won't benefit from the upgrade. For example, if you're a Ma
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However you're certainly right that upgrading my Linux kernel is generally easy, and can be done without updating the entire OS. This is one of many things that makes Windows annoying >:(
Re:Same with everything (Score:5, Insightful)
I like
Its narrow minded sentiment like this that actually keeps people from switching to linux and its surrounding projects. You called the man a fool for stating a FACT. Instead of negative sentiment about M$ why not just give the reasons/FACTS of why linux and FOSS is a better solution. The results might surprise you, unless the only result that you expect from your generosity is for the people you to help to gain your zealotness.
Go ahead and mod me whatever, I've got karma to burn from making insightful posts...
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what are the "killer games" for Vista, besides Halo2?
As for user productivity gains, you have to balance the gains in productivity against the cost of new hardware to run Vista.
Re:Let me guess... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Let me guess... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Let me guess... (Score:4)
Parent
Re:Stop linking Dvorak (Score:4, Interesting)
Paul Thurott is an example of someone with a favorable opinion of MS, whose opinion is generally respected here because it is usually well-researched
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If true, that makes him a polemist, not a shill.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)