Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Operating Systems Software Windows IT

Now Is Not the Time for Vista 402

Posted by Zonk
from the is-anyone-ever-really-ready-for-an-os-upgrade dept.
narramissic writes "With nearly a month of Vista availability behind us, businesses don't seem to be in any rush to take the leap. An article on ITworld cites two significant reasons for the foot-dragging. First, Microsoft's case-by-case approach to Vista patches, which is leaving some problems unpatched until after the consumer release in January. Second, application (in)compatibility. From the article: 'Some of the applications that still aren't compatible with Vista include IBM Corp.'s Lotus Notes e-mail and collaboration suite; Cisco Systems Inc.'s and Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.'s VPN clients; Intuit Corp.'s accounting software QuickBooks 2006 and earlier versions; and anti-virus (AV) software from Trend Micro Inc.'"
'
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Now Is Not the Time for Vista

Comments Filter:
  • Migration (Score:3, Insightful)

    by HazMathew (207212) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:26AM (#17397868)
    It's just not economic. It seems to me companys will not migrate to Vista until they absolutely HAVE to have Vista on their machines. That could be awhile.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Jimmay (1009425)
      This is true. Ford Motor Co. is just now finishing up their XP migration. Current Vista plans are for 2010 or later.
    • Re:Migration (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LighterShadeOfBlack (1011407) on Friday December 29, 2006 @11:01AM (#17398832) Homepage

      Do any companies ever upgrade immediately? It's stupid from the point of view of application support (for any OS upgrade/update there'll almost always be a few issues to be fixed) and there's no clear advantage. My last job was working in an office at a major company, yet they only upgraded from NT to XP in late 2004/early 2005, at the same time as they upgraded all the hardware. That's a little over 3 years after XP's release. I expect the same will happen with Vista. The next time they replace the workstations in 3-4 years they'll shift to Vista aswell. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than switching now and having to upgrade the hardware at the same time.

      And of course this doesn't even begin to account for legacy software. In that job we were still using software originally written and deployed in the 70's, software that's damn hard to replace because the original COBOL coders are all long gone and nobody really has any idea how to migrate properly. Ridiculous amounts of money (millions) were spent getting this stuff to run on XP through emulators, you can be damn sure they're not gonna want to spend that kind of money again to get it to run on Vista until they absolutely have to.

      It's a similar situation for home users. Very few people actually go out and buy Windows, they just use whatever OS comes with the hardware when they buy that. Given that computers are reaching a point where you no longer need to buy a whole new one every few years, is this going to affect the uptake of Vista? I mean I'm currently writing this on a Athlon XP 2400+, it's five years old yet it can easily accomodate any task I can throw at it. I'd say it's still got another couple of years in it yet, so what exactly happens to Vista's sales if everyone but the hardcore-gamers buy new systems running Vista on a seven year turnaround?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by walt-sjc (145127)
        Outside of pilot projects to test the waters which most larger businesses should do, no competent CIO is going to do large scale deployments of anything from MS until it has been out in the market for a while and the kinks are worked out - sp1 or later. How can anyone be surprised about this? It sure as hell isn't news.

        Frankly, I don't know why the consumer version wasn't out first. Let the general public (which is mostly clueless anyway) be the guinea pigs on their brand new Christmas machines. Then we wil
  • by iainl (136759) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:28AM (#17397884)
    The others I understand, and if Quickbooks in particular is broken I can't upgrade our machine (natch; I wanted the Media Centre stuff for my 360).

    But why would you care that the XP version of an AV product doesn't work on Vista? Surely there are enough differences between the OSes that you'll need a new virus scan?
    • by z0idberg (888892) on Friday December 29, 2006 @10:08AM (#17398282)
      Not only that, Vista isnt even going to need ANY AV products! Microsoft said so themselves:

      http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/10/011 4210 [slashdot.org]
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Das Modell (969371)
        I've never had a single virus or spyware infection in my life. They're a completely overrated threat.
        • by paeanblack (191171) on Friday December 29, 2006 @11:59AM (#17399582)
          I've never had a single virus or spyware infection in my life. They're a completely overrated threat.

          Wait until you have children...thousands of children. Some will even have titles like CFO or Senior Partner. The big kids want (and get) local admin rights. Those kids know they have you around to clean up their mess, and they can blame the existence of the mess on you in the first place.
    • by kfg (145172) on Friday December 29, 2006 @10:26AM (#17398480)
      But why would you care that the XP version of an AV product doesn't work on Vista? Surely there are enough differences between the OSes that you'll need a new virus scan?

      Assuming this to be true, it still does not answer the fundamental question:

      "Why bother?"

      There's a new Shimano Grouppo out too. The mere fact that Shimano has released it doesn't in any way compel or obligate me to buy it. Releasing it is their issue, not mine.

      My old Grouppo still works just fine.

      So here's what they do:

      The Grouppos require special, made only by Shimano (they have patents and shit) chains. They will discontinue making the chain for the Grouppo I already have, so just to buy a new chain I will eventually have to buy a new Grouppo.

      Does this behavior sound at all familiar?

      KFG
  • Right (Score:5, Funny)

    by Timesprout (579035) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:28AM (#17397892)
    Because we all know that corporations love to throw out their existing infrastructure and redeploy with newly released software.
    • Re:Right (Score:5, Insightful)

      by garcia (6573) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:39AM (#17397980)
      Because we all know that corporations love to throw out their existing infrastructure and redeploy with newly released software.

      Well, the simple fact of the matter is that XP/2000 work just fine for a corporate environment. It's not like Vista will add any more stability over what's already available. When 2000/XP came out they were worlds beyond what 9x offered and a little better than what NT offered.

      There's no need to switch when everyone's applications are running w/o too much issue and there are too many questions that need to be answered about how the new OS will operate.

      That and I'm not sure people want to have to retrain their staff to use the "ribbons" of Office 2007 that Bill is so excited about.
      • Re:Right (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dioscaido (541037) on Friday December 29, 2006 @11:35AM (#17399246)
        If anything, Vista will be especially appealing to Businesses, with its slew of enterprise features (for example the workable non-Administrator platform, IPSEC, Quarantine of machines on the network, Group Policy and Software deployment, etc...).

        There's never been an OS that has seen immediate deployment in Enterprise. It's pretty disengenious to try to make conclusions out of the corporate adoption rate on the first month of availability (especially when it's not event available to the broader public).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rucs_hack (784150)
      they used to, in the nineties this was all the rage. However the trend has come staggering to a halt as more and more large scale deployments fail.

      What amused me was during the 2K bug crisis, after years of New Stuff being clamored about, and attempted forced obsolescence of old hardware, just how many organizations turned out to still have old Cobol systems installed in the back end of their New Stuff.

      I won't be upgrading to Vista till I absolutely have to. I don't think this will be for a very long time,
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        My son will be getting Vista next year...

        Watch it! I'm this close to calling Child Protective Services on you!

  • by LibertineR (591918) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:29AM (#17397902)
    An OS that wont run Notes should be at the top of every IT manager's list, as far as I'm concerned.
    • "Vista ain't done till Notes won't run"? ;)
    • Now if they can just fix the "Eudora still runs" bug, it'll be ready for production.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by LoudMusic (199347)

      An OS that wont run Notes should be at the top of every IT manager's list, as far as I'm concerned.
      Hallelujah! A reason to upgrade! `Course, AmigaOS would be acceptable for the same reason.
    • No kidding...I have to use Notes at work for email, and I have to say it's one of the most bloated clunky programs I've ever used. The interface is absolutely awful, and it's one of the slowest programs I've ever used. It takes about 2 minutes to start on this work machine (3.2 GHz P4), and about 30 seconds to shut down. They only use it for email also...Thunderbird and IMAP servers with something like Horde or Roundcube for web access would serve the function just as well.
  • by eck011219 (851729) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:30AM (#17397914)
    Seems to me that it may also be that CEOs and others who make decisions haven't had the chance to experience it on a new home computer yet. I remember XP didn't take off for a while, but then was adopted by businesses more and more as execs started having it at home and liking the pretty colors and the bells and whistles. I suspect these decisions aren't based as much on stability as we'd all like to think -- I think a lot of adoption of Vista will happen when powerful people (not necessarily technical people) start wanting some of Vista's fun or pretty stuff at the office. And they just haven't had a chance to find out about it yet.
    • Yeah, If MS would just bundle some ego stroking audio chat bot with Vista that told those CEOs how great they were all day, it'd be an immediate hit ;)
    • I remember XP didn't take off for a while, but then was adopted by businesses more and more as execs started having it at home and liking the pretty colors and the bells and whistles.

      Yeah, and the funny thing is: once the IT department started deploying XP, they virtually removed all the fancy funny things with group policies.

    • It could also be the fact that any new machines bought to replace dead/broken ones came pre-installed with XP. As more of these cheap machines died or locked up due to virus attacks, as they frequently do, XP gained seats.

      Now, as these XP machines are brought down by virus, and since they do not come with install media for such a case, you can either pay $300 for a new copy of XP to reinstall (which will be missing all of the important device drivers), then spend the next two weeks trying to get everything
      • by Dan Ost (415913)
        When a machine is brought down by a virus, we generally try to pop Linux
        on it unless the user can make a case for needing windows.
    • Seems to me that it may also be that CEOs and others who make decisions haven't had the chance to experience it on a new home computer yet. I remember MAC OS hasn't take off yet, but it will be adopted by businesses more and more as execs started having it at home and liking the pretty colors and the bells and whistles. I suspect these decisions aren't based as much on stability as we'd all like to think -- I think a lot of adoption of MAC OSX will happen when powerful people (not necessarily technical peop
  • Same Old Cycle (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Genocaust (1031046) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:33AM (#17397938)
    I don't see how the slow adoption of Vista is any different from previous Windows releases, except that the consumer version is being delayed a month rather than be released in tandem. The DoD only truly migrated fully to XP early last year; no corporation with a large IT infrastructure is going to be eager to lead the charge without concrete proof that upgrading will benefit them in the long term.
    • by 0xABADC0DA (867955) on Friday December 29, 2006 @11:05AM (#17398870)
      No body has pointed this out yet, that the difference is 64-bit. Like 2d graphics acceleration, 32-bit will be the backwater poorly-optimized part of new processors. Yeah, you will be able to run your pirate copy of XP on new computers but over time it will get less and less efficient to do so. This transition basically solves Microsoft's problem of XP being 'good enough', so there will actually be a faster transition to Vista than say to 95->98, 98->ME, 95->NT, NT->2k, 2k->2k3. Only 3.1->95 will have been a faster transition IMO.
  • by throx (42621) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:34AM (#17397940) Homepage
    Some corporations are still running Windows 98. Many are on Windows 2000. Very rarely will a corporation migrate to a one month old operating system - they'll trial it in very select areas to shake out the bugs and tech support issues they are likely to face and then deploy 6-30 months later (depending on the date of their upgrade cycle).

    Vista *will* roll out to businesses, but don't expect it to overtake XP any faster than XP overtook 2000, or 2000 overtook 98, etc.

    And Notes won't run? Damn - I'm upgrading NOW.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by 955301 (209856)
      Vista *might* roll out. But my company just switched to Mac OS instead. The backoffice servers are all linux. There is only one windows machine for accounting, and that is due to roll over to a Mac at the beginning of the new year.

      Vista is windows dead end. I believe a mass exodus to Apple computers will be occurring over the next five year. Up until and including Windows 2000, Microsoft deserved the market share they have had. But with Windows XP came especially Vista comes the realization that the company
      • by Dan Ost (415913)
        Can you give us an idea how big a company you're talking about
        and what sorts of problems/solutions were encountered during the
        migration?

        Good case studies are hard to find.
  • Seriously, what reason is there to upgrade right now? You don't need to have a reason NOT to upgrade. When businesses eventually need new machines and Vista is the OEM OS, then businesses, and for that matter, academic institutions, etc., will start using it. This will be true if it turns out to be the best OS ever or a complete piece of unnecessary bloatware. It's strange to me that this continues to be brought up on /., it seems so obvious.
    • Even then most companies may not use Vista. I can think of two reasons:

      1) Most companies have volume licenses and custom Windows configurations.
      Like my company, the first thing they do is wipe the HD and install their customized Windows image. I know of some companies who are still on Win2K. Eventually, they'll upgrade but on their timeline, not MS.

      2)Most of the new user features require serious hardware.
      Most users won't get the nifty UI changes unless they go with better hardware. Unlike XP and W

      • by jc42 (318812)
        I know of some companies who are still on Win2K. Eventually, they'll upgrade but on their timeline, not MS.

        I recently worked for a big company that was finally biting the bullet and converting all their W95 machines to W98. I figure they'll start considering Vista in 2015 or so.

        Somehow I doubt that this is an isolated case. Most business people understand that if you have something that's doing the job, you don't replace it with something unfamiliar.

      • But even if they wipe the machine, it came preloaded with Vista. That counts as a sale to MS as well as their "user base" for Vista machines. What OS it runs after the cleanup by IT is another matter that they may not care about. I had to fight with Dell to even consider selling me machines I wanted for my company without an OS. They kept trying to tell me they were cheaper with Windows on them. They DO sell machines without a Microsoft OS, but they are slim pickins and did not match the specs I told t
  • I'm sure the next computer I buy will end up having Vista come pre-installed, for my "convenience". Anyone know if the previous versions of Office work with it? I'm particularly interested in Office 2K (Word, Powerpoint, and Excel), since that has worked the best for me and is still considered the standard format in a number of workplace environments.
    • Opps. Put the scary quotes around the wrong word. It's supposed to be: [...] for "my" convenience.
    • by johneee (626549)
      I've run office 2K on it with no problems for a month or so now. Or at least I haven't found any gotcha's with Word, Excel, Access, PowerPoint or Outlook. Not that I've done extensive testing, just used it.

      I never bothered putting 97 on it, (because I hate O97) but I don't see why it wouldn't work just as well.
  • by photozz (168291) <`photozz' `at' `gmail.com'> on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:37AM (#17397964) Homepage
    Notes is such a shitty program I'm surprised it's running in WinXP much less Vista....
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by HazMathew (207212)
      Ah, Notes... The first pile of steaming dung I smell in the morning. Sure gets my day going.
      • by Dunbal (464142)
        Ah, Notes... The first pile of steaming dung I smell in the morning. Sure gets my day going.

              The second one being - slashdot? :)
  • Wow (Score:2, Interesting)

    by organgtool (966989)
    No support for Cisco VPN software or Lotus Notes? Why would Microsoft cater its release of Vista to businesses when it doesn't support software that is essential for many businesses to run? I'm sure Microsoft will blame the developers of the incompatible software for not rushing out a release that is compatible with Vista and those developers will blame Microsoft for breaking compatibility to fix the broken security architecture of previous versions of Windows. I'm also sure that Microsoft's response to
    • by Tony Hoyle (11698)
      There's also the small matter of SQL Server and Visual Studio 2005.

      I was shocked when I ran the compatibility wizard and found those were incompatible... 'contact the manufacturer' it says.. umm..
    • Cisco VPN software works... I'm not sure where that information is coming from.

      I think the fact that Cisco's Call Manager interface is based on a bastardized form of Java and requires IE6 + MS JVM, they deserve to have to rebuild it. So saying Vista doesn't support Cisco, is only half true.

      Cisco did it to themselves by going down a proprietary road, and now they're going to make their customers pay for the dev time to redesign it.

      No problem for me though, I have access to IE 6 via citrix.
  • we upgraded (Score:3, Informative)

    by CDPatten (907182) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:39AM (#17397982) Homepage
    I have a small client (75 users) and we are on a five year plan for new hardware... it was up in October. We bought new Dell's and Vista Business in November, and rolled them out last week.

    In the Ad industry we have to use lots (7) of custom apps for Media, Accounting, and Shipping. We had 2 problems. 1 wasn't the program but the installer didn't detect the correct OS. It was a small app so we just copied it over with its .dlls. The other problem was solved perfectly by running the shortcut in compatibility mode.

    As for the users: very happy with Vista and Office 2007. I mean, really happy. I'm sure it helps that they now have big flat screen monitors and faster computers, but we are getting lots of good feedback at the agency.

    The OS: We wrote a few custom gadgets to automate a few tacks in about 10 minutes a piece, and people love them. We don't do the indexed search for network shares so people really aren't talking about that, but believe it or not, they love the animations and the "pretty" stuff. We never had a problem with XP crashing or anything so the fact that Vista is stable doesn't really change much for us.

    For anyone thinking about Office 2007: It went over huge here, between the ribbon and all the visual additions (especially smart objects). Actually our Accounting department is loving the new excel, and our president is pretty excited about the toys in powerpoint. Word seems to be liked but that is the one we hear least about.

    From my perspective: The Vista imaging software and new group policy is awesome. We did the rollout over the weekend, and it went off without a hitch. I'm not really giving MS credit for that, we worked on the image for a few weeks, but we are very happy so far.
    • by meringuoid (568297) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:45AM (#17398038)
      Actually our Accounting department is loving the new excel, and our president is pretty excited about the toys in powerpoint.

      I pity whoever goes into the next meeting. PHB Powerpoint mindset: "I've got these toys and by God I'm going to use them ALL!"

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:48AM (#17398074)

      I have a small client (75 users) and we are on a five year plan for new hardware... it was up in October. We bought new Dell's and Vista Business in November, and rolled them out last week.

      In the Ad industry we have to use lots (7) of custom apps for Media, Accounting, and Shipping. We had 2 problems. 1 wasn't the program but the installer didn't detect the correct OS. It was a small app so we just copied it over with its .dlls. The other problem was solved perfectly by running the shortcut in compatibility mode.

      As for the users: very happy with Vista and Office 2007. I mean, really happy. I'm sure it helps that they now have big flat screen monitors and faster computers, but we are getting lots of good feedback at the agency.

      The OS: We wrote a few custom gadgets to automate a few tacks in about 10 minutes a piece, and people love them. We don't do the indexed search for network shares so people really aren't talking about that, but believe it or not, they love the animations and the "pretty" stuff. We never had a problem with XP crashing or anything so the fact that Vista is stable doesn't really change much for us.

      For anyone thinking about Office 2007: It went over huge here, between the ribbon and all the visual additions (especially smart objects). Actually our Accounting department is loving the new excel, and our president is pretty excited about the toys in powerpoint. Word seems to be liked but that is the one we hear least about.

      From my perspective: The Vista imaging software and new group policy is awesome. We did the rollout over the weekend, and it went off without a hitch. I'm not really giving MS credit for that, we worked on the image for a few weeks, but we are very happy so far.
      Dude... Umm... Sorry to interrupt but there's an express courier from Microsoft at the front desk. He claims he's got a complementary laptop for you.
      • by Dunbal (464142)
        He claims he's got a complementary laptop for you.

              There's a EULA sticker that you have to break when you lift up the screen, and it said "By breaking this seal you agree not to sell this laptop on E-bay. If you do not agree, please return the laptop to Microsoft."
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by frdmfghtr (603968)
      Considering that you are in the advertising industry, I'm not surprised that your user love the "animations and "pretty" stuff. The ad industry is about images that portray something positive and desirable about the advertised product to the target audience. Thus, users being focused on the visual appearance of Vista and Office 2007 is no surprise.

      It's not a criticism, just an observation.
    • by vertinox (846076)
      For anyone thinking about Office 2007: It went over huge here, between the ribbon and all the visual additions (especially smart objects). Actually our Accounting department is loving the new excel, and our president is pretty excited about the toys in powerpoint. Word seems to be liked but that is the one we hear least about.

      I have to admit that after playing around with Office 2007 that those apps can take your useless crap numbers and make it look important or that you paid a graphic artists to make it l
    • Which advertising department do you work for? Microsofts ;)

      Just a joke ;) couldnt resist. Office 2007 is pretty nifty
  • by Ice Wewe (936718) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:40AM (#17397992)
    "With nearly a month of Vista availability behind us, businesses don't seem to be in any rush to take the leap."

    IMHO, businesses aren't in a rush to upgrade to Vista because of the incompatabilities mentioned in the article, and the fact that upgrading costs a lot of money. Some of which, these businessess don't have, or weren't planning on using for a Vista upgrade.

    If I may speculate on behalf of the businesses, with all the applications that they likely use on a daily bases not working, and the increased cost of upgrading (which you then have to pay off/make up in increased profits), they'd rather wait until most of these problems are fixed in the operating system they're going to pay for. You're probably thinking "well, there's no time like the present", and you'd be wrong. Businesses stand to loose a lot of money if the applications they rely on (and perhaps weren't mentioned in the incompatability list, but also have limited/no functionality) don't work until 6 months later when MSFT releases an update to fix all (nice dream, mind if I join?) the applications compatability issues.

    Businesses would rather stick with what they've got right now for the next little while. It doesn't cost them as much to maintain an OS thats already been installed and is functioning, as it would to install Vista, and deal with all the resulting problems. It doesn't matter to them if they wait an extra 6 months to upgrade, because it will mean less loss in revenue.

    Just my opinion.

  • by Travoltus (110240) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:41AM (#17398000) Journal
    When nothing except certain M$ software will work with Vista, it's ready to go.

    [sarcasm off]
  • by Corporate Troll (537873) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:43AM (#17398026) Homepage Journal

    And honestly, people can argue until they're blue in the face about how XP is fine, but the reality is that it's five years old, technology has changed and a new OS is necessary.

    Does this guy even know what an OS is? There is no reason why new technology can't be supported in an "old OS". Especially if the "new OS" is basically an update of the "old OS".

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:47AM (#17398062)
    for Vista.

    Has Hell frozen over yet? Then no Vista for me, thanks.
  • or testing perhaps? (Score:3, Informative)

    by briancnorton (586947) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:51AM (#17398108) Homepage
    Seriously, what business has a testing cycle for an OS that can be done in a month? I mean where I am we're JUST NOW getting ready to go XP, 5.5 years after release, and nearly half of the machines will stay on Win2000 indefinitely. A month (or even a year or two) is not foot-dragging, it's responsible business use of IT.
    • Testing a new OS in a month may be optimistic for a large organisation, but seriously, if you take two years to evaluate software, you're absurdly under-resourced (or just incompetent). What did you think you were going to learn after the first couple of times you installed it on a trial network and checked that everything you needed was working? Whole businesses come and go in that time frame! Really, either it's worth the time and money to upgrade or it's not, and if you can't make that call within a few

  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:55AM (#17398146) Homepage
    Hardly news. This should not be read as a mass rejection of Vista, just an indication that corporation IT departments do their job in a reasonably competent and responsive way.

    It takes about a year-and-a-half before a corporation that fully intends to transition to the new OS is ready for the "rollout." Typically this involves a good deal of preparation so that everyone in the company gets their new PC, their training classes, their new application versions, and their direction for migrating at about the same time.

    At the introduction of every major Windows upgrade, the same things have happened: Gartner et al have told corporations to take their time adopting the new OS, and corporations, whether because they listen to the analysts or for their own reasons, have done so.
  • by Klaidas (981300)
    Just wait till all those flavors get released in 2007. Then, after 6 months you can write an article.
  • by div_2n (525075) on Friday December 29, 2006 @09:59AM (#17398190)
    With the support of the CFO and CEO, I've developed the policy that we won't even entertain Vista until a minimum of SP1 and a year of full release has passed. In other words, we won't even begin testing until January 2008. I doubt our company is alone.

    I don't doubt Vista will make some traction, but it seems to me that the likelihood is in a very slow adoption rate. By the time businesses are ready to take it seriously, many companies may be very open to alternatives that will have matured quite nicely. After all--with quite a few perfectly good computers sitting around that won't run Vista either at all or very well, why should we ditch those resources when we can reallocate them as a Linux desktop?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by majortom1981 (949402)
      so you are stating that you rather be a hypocrite and switch over to a compeltely brand new operating system and have compeltely new programs and everything else faster then vista where alot of drivers and programs still work under compatibility mode in vista? Yes I am stating this because of your linux comments.
      • Its all about numbers. If they can continue using their existing hardware, cut support costs due to a different OS and maintain backend compatibility with their file shares, old reports, etc and still do business they are golden. The end user in a company doesn't really need to know how to use their OS. They need to know how to use the software that matters to doing their job. Every time a new piece of software becomes mandatory for their position, they have to learn it. How is this any different?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Mafia$oft (717004)
        Linux has:
        - completely standardized/open formats and protocols as opposed to the "completely brand new" file formats that Microsoft loves to create each year
        - had fully working x86 64bit support 3(!) years earlier than Windows (well... minus a ton of 64bit-incapable proprietary offerings, which never get their things done in time anyway)
        - had nice 3D desktops at least a year earlier than Vista
        - enjoyed a nice Bluetooth stack as the very first operating system ever
        - and several others I don't recount right n
    • by div_2n (525075)
      I got modded down? I understand if I don't get modded up, but down? I see the Microsoft mod trolls are hard at work.
  • Regarding application compatibility, this is the fault of the vendor, not Microsoft. The vendors had well a year or more to get their stuff working with Vista while it was in beta.

    That said, I'm not upgrading essential work machines to Vista yet either. Once we get .NET 3.0 applications up and running and enough new machines with Vista pre-installed, that would be the time to upgrade.
    • by Lxy (80823) on Friday December 29, 2006 @10:10AM (#17398306) Journal
      Regarding application compatibility, this is the fault of the vendor, not Microsoft. The vendors had well a year or more to get their stuff working with Vista while it was in beta.

      According to several vendors, the IP stack kept changing throughout the beta process. After several futile attempts to write code against the stack, most vendors have had to wait until final release before building their products. Novell coems to mind, I'm sure Cisco and others are in the same boat.
  • Since when has Lotus Notes ever been compatible with windows?
    • Hey what do you mean Notes is incompatible? In what way?
      We use Lotus Notes in about 15,000 installations at our Bank. Of course, rolling out the image is hard, but then there is nothing problematic after that.
      Maybe you got a older version of Notes.
  • Experience in the past has showed that we better wait until SP1 or maybe even SP2 before considering a migration.
    Maybe 10% of the workstations at work is "Vista ready". We most likely will not write off the other 90%.

    I would say, give it at least a year and probably a servicepack, and only then start evaluating the costs and benefits.
  • Why? Well first of all I'm a masochist: TMI I know. But they suckered me in with the free year long trial of Vista RC1. It's shiny, pretty, and unfinished but it's more than usable.

    Plus, I like to experiment with the new features and see what's under the hood. Switch to Gentoo you say? I could, but then I'd have to get my hands gooey at levels that I'd rather remain a mystery (the kernel should remain distant, angry, and invisible like a God).

    I'm Microsoft's ideal early adopter: Easily impresse
    • "Switch to Gentoo you say? I could, but then I'd have to get my hands gooey at levels that I'd rather remain a mystery (the kernel should remain distant, angry, and invisible like a God)"

      I can't for the life of me understand why you would need to get your hands gooey. These provide similar desktop experiences to Vista without compiling the kernel. Looking Glass [youtube.com] on Ubuntu, Beryl 3D [youtube.com] on Gentoo, Novells SLED [desktoplinux.com] and Suns Looking Glass 3D desktop [macnn.com].

      "I'm not a communist and don't believe in that hippy crap"

      G
    • I'm Microsoft's ideal early adopter:

      Summary: Willing to buy something that doesn't work, awed by bright colors and shiney buttons, fearful of anything different.
  • Maybe it is too costly for Microsoft to dedicate resources for compatibility issues. It might be a nice way clean-up Win32... maybe anti-Wine? They probably knew people and companies won't jump ASAP to Vista (it happened to Win2k3 server), so, why they should care? Is Vista the Windows Me equivalent?

    Actually most versions of Windows do a lot of compatibility checks and fixes, but it was because Microsoft wanted people to upgrade (I would say it was a long term plan to migrate everyone to NT). Win 95 was a W
  • Yeah, a month? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by grasshoppa (657393) <skennedy.tpno-co@org> on Friday December 29, 2006 @10:38AM (#17398584) Homepage
    Let's go through the bullet points, shall we?

    1) An OS with an exceptionally delayed production cycle. From a company with a less than stellar coding rep. Color me cynical, but I'm still worried they pushed it out the door early.

    2) They rewrote the tcp stack. This terrifies me. We have what is essentially untested code in a critical component of the OS. Again, from a company with a less than stellar coding rep.

    3) Support; It takes longer than a month for techs to figure out a new OS.

    4) Infrastructure; Most systems in place in a corporation can't run vista. Further, we will not be upgrading just to pay the new tax to MS.

    If in three or five years vista adoption is lacking, then that's a story; As of now, it's just common sense.
  • by Vip (11172) on Friday December 29, 2006 @10:44AM (#17398652)
    Windows ain't done, 'til Lotus won't run!

    Vip
  • As I understand it, business usually have contracts with HP or Dell to replace all their PCs once ever 3 - 5 years. Businesses get whatever the current OS is, at the time.

    So, the lack of immediate upgrading may have nothing to do with Vistas performance, or businesses opinions of Vista.
  • We have an office full of three year old PCs that run XP perfectly well. They don't come close to the specs needed to run Vista. There is no way we are going to replace 15 PCs just to run Vista.
  • Cisco VPN does work (Score:3, Informative)

    by GIL_Dude (850471) on Friday December 29, 2006 @11:13AM (#17398974) Homepage
    I have a Vista RTM notebook running Cisco 4.8.1.0590 and I can connect back to my office with it just fine using RSA SecurID. It has worked for 2 months at least. So maybe the data is old?
  • by Jerry (6400) on Friday December 29, 2006 @05:06PM (#17403500)
    get VISTA unless they specifical ask for XP.

    If they ask for Linux they'll still get the run-around or turned down.

    You can thank the Bush DOJ team that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and gave Microsoft a "settlement" with no enforcement teeth and defacto approval for all their past illegal business dealings, and a blank check for continuing those practices under different disguises in the future. Before the trial Microsoft had secret agreements that restricted what OS the PC makers could sell with their computers. After the trial Microsoft "favors" OEMs with ad rebates if they are good little boys, otherwise the ad rebates are denied and the bad boys lose their profits. Different technique, same results: a continuing MS monopoly on the OEM desktops. If the Sherman-Clayton and other laws were enforced MS wouldn't even be alive today, so buggy and insecure is their software. Consumers would have a REAL choice.

If you're not careful, you're going to catch something.

Working...