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.'"
'
might be lack of exposure to the right people, too (Score:5, Interesting)
Wow (Score:2, Interesting)
Tepid, tepid, tepid - Windows ME (Score:1, Interesting)
I'm not upgrading, and I'm a huge MS user. As a matter of full disclosure, I'm a .NET programmer, SharePoint developer, I prefer MS over almost any other offering except virtualization platforms, accounting software, and media creation. I live in Washington, and regulary attend MS events in Seattle and Redmond. Now, onto the Vista:
It's slow and a resource hog, and none of their different "levels" fits well enough for me. I don't want the low end, but the level of Vista that has what I want and need has a bunch of crap I don't, and costs too much, and the next level down, has hardly of the stuff I want.
I bought a fairly beefy laptop last year, so I can run virtual servers for development when I'm on the road. It's not within the minimum guidelines for Vista. I've tried to run it on my desktop and laptop, no go.
Software I rely upon will not work with Vista. Sure, Visual Studio 2003 is a no go. I also develop in 2005, and I can build .NET 1.1 from that, but...haven't gotten it to work on Vista.
Vista will be an also ran for MS OS's. It will be like MS-DOS 4.0 (back then, I tried it, and retrograded to 3.2 very quickly). Hell, MS isn't pushing it hard like they were with XP.
What has worked in the past for MS should work for the next version, the OS should:
So, I'm sticking with my XP for now, I will wait for the next OS, the one that MS creates after learning what a disaster Vista is.
Slashdot quota (Score:1, Interesting)
Business migrations take time. Get used to it. You should be, since Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows XP Service Pack 2 have taken plenty of time to get tested and rolled out in the business world. I listed SP2 seperately because it really needs to be treated like its own OS. It's like no OS service pack we've seen before.
Vista is like every other OS since Windows 95. Nothing compelling to make most users want to upgrade, nothing compelling to make ANY business want to upgrade. Eventually XP SP2 will become ancient history and some application will require Vista, which is what usually drives OS rollouts in business. Hopefully your business is forward thinking enough to plan ahead and be ready for that day. In the meantime, no one is waiting anxiously for Vista, we're waiting for a REASON to use Vista.
Now, to figure out how to filter out stories with the word "Vista" in the subject..
Re:Huh? Cisco is compatible (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, a month? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Now Is Not the Time for Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
For desktop Linux in the workplace, you don't neccessarily want users installing software, let alone Quake 3. Many business IT people see the bigger picture in which IT plays a role. That bigger picture is that the business needs to run applications and manage data that's relevant to their operation. Nothing in that role description requires Windows or anything people are familiar with. I still see business running on terminal connections to a larger system somewhere. Nothing "NEEDS" a mouse... it's just a nice thing that many people have come to believe is normal. And when it comes to training employees, I believe that most of the training should and often does consist of understanding the DATA [information] that the business runs on. The user interface in those situations are somewhat irrelevant though admittedly not completely irrelevant. (A good UI is not the exclusive domain of Windows and I have seen countless BAD-UI applictions written for Windows as well, so the fact that something runs on Windows is no guarantee that the users will be more productive sooner or ever.)
And as a Linux apologist, I have to ask everyone to recall the "ease of use" that DOS/Windows had before Win95. And since package management isn't unified yet, it's obvious what is holding back the ability to "easily install Quake 3." The time will come though... it'll come. I imagine that if, for example, everything shifted over to RPM with YUM repositories, installing, updating and deleting packages could be managed through a convenient GUI such as Yumex. (It works really well in FC5 and 6) The problem isn't lack of technology, it's the diversity of technology combined with a presently low market drive. So the argument is actually a catch-22 argument. You're saying "linux sucks because because there's not enough mainstream apps to make it useful and those that do exist are too inconvenient to install and therefore it has a lower market share." I hold that as trends seem to indicate that the market share is growing in a very erosive way [meaning many people try Linux because they are annoyed with Windows whose market share they are eroding], "Linux sucks because its present market share is the cause for not having all the main-stream apps that other OS environments enjoy... presently."
Same Really Old Cycle (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Well, perhaps.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:AV incompatible? So? (Score:1, Interesting)
2. I run Win 2k without ANY AV products too -- honestly! Of course, IE is nuked, Firefox only for web browsing, Javascript turned off, hardware firewall, and e-mail isn't read on that machine, only on the Mac.
See? No problem. Even MS products from >5 years ago can run just fine without AV.
Re:AV incompatible? So? (Score:4, Interesting)
Shimano has driven most of the competition out of the market. They have a virtual monopoly on OEM equipment. The shit came preinstalled.
Does this sound familiar?
The "Open Source" stuff, well, mostly kinda sucks. It's not their fault, it's just that the newer "innovations" are all still tied up in Shimano patents; and the entire industry has to play Shimano's game or, at best, be relegated to a small niche market.
Does this sound familiar?
On my other bike, however, I have a Campy Nouvo Record Grouppo that, although propriatary, established the industry's "Open Standard." Although dating from the early 70's it still functions perfectly. It has actually outlived three frames.
But you must access the system from a console shell and don't expect to play DVDs on it.
Shimano took over an industry where there was already an established giant by cheaply mass producing knockoffs that were of inferior quality; but with the addition of features that made the equipment more convenient to use for the nonexpert. Once they had become the new giant they began throwing their weight around, raised their prices to the premium level and introduced planned, forced obsolesence.
Sound fam. . . ooooooooooh, nevermind.
Within the context of the story, however, the fact remains that until such time as the "chain" on XP wears out:
Why bother upgrading? XP has all those nifty "consumer" features already. Your existing system still works. What does it matter that Vista needs a new kind of AV package? As the OP illustrates the average consumer (note the absence of scare quotes) has come to simply expect all the little balls of needless shit he has to buy in order to upgrade.
So that isn't the real reason that uptake is a bit slow.
No, the real reason is that XP still works and for first time Microsoft has not been able to put forward a single compelling reason for the business consumer to find Vista desirable. It only seems to exist for the sole reason that Microsoft wants more of your money. For nothing.
Ok, so we have to buy new AV software for Vista, but why should we buy Vista?!
For the first time they have introduced a "new" operating system and the majority response is:
"Right, Bill. Blow me."
And they ain't gonna change that tune until the chain wears out.
This isn't strictly an issue with Microsoft either; I'm posting this from a Mandrake 8.0 box, but I could fire up the Red Hat 5.2 or Mac System 7 box.
But it's getting harder by the day to keep them up and usefully connected. Sooner or later I'll just say "Screw it" and put the Kubuntu box into frontline service.
When all I really need for Mandrake 8.0 (which on the whole I like better) is an improved chain. Carving chains by hand, however, while possible, is a pain in the ass.
KFG
Re:Maybe not for *you*. (Score:3, Interesting)
First, you install Windows, say XP SP1, and leave it in its default state. Then you fire up IE and navigate around to some pages. Preferably seedy ones. Googling "free porn," "warez," or "serial numbers" ought to do it. Then when you see some incomprehensible message about an ActiveX control, click OK. Congratulations, you've probably got yourself some spyware or a rootkit. This is pretty much the guaranteed way; if you surf around long enough, you can probably find sites that use vulnerabilities in IE to bypass the "click OK" step -- for so-called "drive-by downloading" and arbitrary code execution. Here's a list [explabs.com] of the most popular exploitware. Older versions of IE are particularly vulnerable, so basically surfing using any machine that hasn't been patched is a ticket to rootville. And unfortunately, many people would rather just start surfing than update their computer's security patches first.
Alternately, you can just plug an unpatched pre-SP2 box directly into a broadband connection (as in, without a router or firewall in the way) and leave it there for a while; that should get you something. This is somewhat harder to do with SP2, since it has a firewall turned on by default and fewer services running.
The net result is that many people who have older machines get compromised and can't fix them, either because they don't have re-install/recovery media, or because they haven't backed up their data, so the problem just gets worse until the computer is unusably infested. Then they get a new machine, with a new version of Windows, and for a short time it's more secure (because it'll probably be SP2). After a few months or years of neglect, though, it's the same pattern over again.
Linux Apologist - Not Really (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is what everyone says. That shows that you don't know anything about the present-day Linux desktop. Question: what mainstream app is missing from the business computing desktop environment?
Is it:Well, the list goes on. Custom-written software (could work well under emulation unless designed specifically to thwart WINE), IP Telephony (Skype has a Linux client), and so on. My point is that any business that's interested could switch today if they wanted. There's no missing killer app (unless you're trying to make excuses). The roadblocks to migrating entirely to Linux on the business desktop are all artificially created by Microsoft to protect their monopoly. The most difficult part is convincing your users that it's a good choice. They've been brainwashed by years of Microsoft marketing, and believe pretty much every word that comes out of Steve's and Bill's mouths blindly. Many organisations will encounter significant resistance during training as belligerent, brain-washed Microsoft junkies demand that things go back to the way they were. That's unfortunate, because I can finally say after almost 15 years of using Linux, that using a Linux desktop is a joy, not an arduous task that requires command-line hacking to accomplish everything it can do.
MS still controls PC OEMS and new buyers will .... (Score:3, Interesting)
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.