Now Is Not the Time for Vista 402
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.'"
'
Migration (Score:3, Insightful)
AV incompatible? So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Isn't this the story with ALL new MS releases? (Score:1, Insightful)
Same Old Cycle (Score:5, Insightful)
This is unusual how? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Notes compatibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Incompatible with Lotus Notes (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Right (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Businesses aren't upgrading because... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Quote from the article (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:we upgraded (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a criticism, just an observation.
Re:Not entertaining anytime soon (Score:2, Insightful)
Cisco is to blame, not Microsoft... (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, I'm not upgrading essential work machines to Vista yet either. Once we get
... and you live in a dream world ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This is unusual how? (Score:2, Insightful)
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 has lost their way.
It will take some serious losses, perhaps even half of the company, before someone will be able to come in and turn things around again.
Re:Tepid, tepid, tepid - Windows ME (Score:3, Insightful)
It's funny, people were saying the same thing about XP versus 2000 until MS refused to patch 2000 a few years ago. I've used Vista, and it is faster than my 1 year old installation of XP. XP has a nasty habit of getting fucked over time. My machine is fairly mid-range these days.
As for the software versions - christ, 5 versions aren't enough for you? Whatever.
work with 4 year-old equipment, processors, memory, etc.
MS has NEVER released a major release OS that did this. In 1991, many computers still shipped with 1 or 2 megs of ram. Windows 95 was certainly not designed for this. In 1997, most computers shipped with 32 megs of ram, totally insufficient to run windows XP. Especially when today, there is new stuff that really can change the computing experience - dual core processors make multithreading really functional, hybrid hard drives will revolutionize laptop usage, modern graphics cards can really improve the desktop experience - why would MS give a shit about what was happening 4 years ago?
be compatable with SW from the same time frame
Name one major program released in the last 4 years that will not run on Vista.
come in 2, maybe 3 levels of implementation (excluding servers)
Home - Price point under $70
Professional - Price point under $120
Extra (maybe - Price point under $150
MS has kept almost the same pricing structure for ages. You pulled these prices out of your ass.
Upgradeable from one level to the next without a complete reinstall
I'm not quite sure why this would matter.
Beyond basic OS, all extras, funky new desktops, including browser, media player, text pads, etc. are optional installs.
Much of this is optional. You obviously haven't installed it.
And, allow me to virtualize it, dammit!
Only the home edition doesn't allow virtualization. 99% of people using virtualization use it for development or business purposes, so this does sort of make sense. By the business or ultimate edition.
Oh, and give it a name that doesn't blow, or suck.
It doesn't suck as much as you! Vista is a cool name. I like it!
Re:AV incompatible? So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Maybe compatibility is not important (Score:2, Insightful)
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 Win 3.x upgrade, 2000/XP were Win 9x/Me upgrades. For example, Win95 did check for a lot of DOS device drivers - junk probably nobody used like ancient network drivers and weird tape drives.
If I had a product incompatible on Vista, probably Microsoft would blame me for doing stuff they have probably documented "it won't work", and probably also ask me why I didn't test it in all those Vista beta versions. It's a great opportunity for software companies to release new products (regardless of usefulness).
Anyway, they can slowly wait until XP becomes officially obsolete.
Now that's just silly (Score:3, Insightful)
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 weeks, it's probably not (or at least not until a service pack is out that addresses the concerns raised during your trial process).
Re:Well, perhaps.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps someone who's posting a piece on how they've had no trouble installing/running Linux has their own agenda as well. Or not.
The point is that on Slashdot saying something postive about MS is instantly suspect, but saying something postive about Linux isn't.
This is disappointing because nerds are supposed to be about logic and critical/scientific thinking, but we can be as blind as the worst sports fans when it comes to our sacred choices of technologies.
Re:Migration (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Now Is Not the Time for Linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, now is the perfect time for end-user institutions to begin linux desktop migration projects, and to push vendors to fully function in that environment. After all, we're talking about migrating to a different operating system, why is it just assumed it will be vista, why not linux? Start plans to migrate to linux NOW, and start testing a linux desktop replacement that works with corporate apps. I include dumping exchange in the scope of these projects. The license fees to be saved by a large institution with thousands of desktops are enormous, and with the savings comes the satisfaction and freedom of no longer being beholden to the microsoft protection racket.
I realize this is a large project, expensive in itself... hey, SO IS MIGRATING TO VISTA,
Re:Not entertaining anytime soon (Score:3, Insightful)
- 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 now
So, pray tell me, this is "completely brand new" (implies lots of bugginess) how?
So, let's see how well Windows does in comparison:
- "completely brand new" office suite (entirely redesigned GUI) with "completely brand new" DRM-crippled file format
- "completely brand new" operating system with "completely brand new" yet currently less visible DRM crippling which extends all the way down to hugely increasing hardware development costs and complexity to make sure users will have lots of fun with self-crippling hardware (protected audio path etc.pp.)
- "completely brand new" Windows shell (oh, right, NOT available) and fully based on
- "completely brand new" Windows build (how much time did it take them to come up with a final build of Vista after the semi-decade-long desaster that was Vista development? 6 months?? And you think this will turn out to be stable??)
Conclusion: please tell me where your point is?
Re:Right (Score:3, Insightful)
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, probably many years, as my main system is a Linux box, and my treasured cluster is a Gentoo system. XP is kept around for the few games I enjoy that need it. I'll likely upgrade when games manufacturers stop developing with support for XP. If Linux becomes a decent gaming platform before that then I may still not bother.
My son will be getting Vista next year in his new computer, and that will suit for my software testing purposes. I do need that aspect because the software I maintain is cross platform, even though the main branch is Linux. If he hadn't been getting that system I'd probably just rely on Vista owning friends for testing.
Re:Right (Score:4, Insightful)
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:AV incompatible? So? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Migration (Score:3, Insightful)
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 will see just how bad the new flavors of activation / GA / DRM crap is to the average person.
Why did MS think that businesses want to be the guinea pigs? Has the entire executive team at MS lost it?
If it was a level playing field (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is that on Slashdot saying something postive about MS is instantly suspect, but saying something postive about Linux isn't.
All things being equal I'd agree with you, but all things aren't equal. MSFT spends millions on PR firms that make their living generating positive "press hits" for their clients. Slashdot readers aren't the only ones justified in being cynical of what they read about MSFT and MSFT products online, including this forum, and in trade magazines.
Not every positive comment about a MSFT product is a PR press hit, but there are enough of those out there we have a right to be cynical. Many of us have been burned enough over the years that MSFT has earned that instant suspicion. If on occasion a genuine positive comment gets tarnished, well that's just too damn bad, isn't it?
Re:Migration (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps they knew businesses wouldn't, so this was a way of "releasing" the software in 2006 rather than 2007 but still having an extra 10 weeks to work on patches before support became an issue.