Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Operating Systems Windows Software

Microsoft Vista, IE7 Banned By U.S. DOT 410

Posted by Zonk
from the that-is-a-serious-buzz-harsher dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to a memo being reported on by Information week, the US Department of Transportation has issued a moratorium on upgrading Microsoft products. Concerns over costs and compatability issues has lead the federal agency to prevent upgrades from XP to Vista, as well as to stop users from moving to IE 7 and Office 2007. As the article says, 'In a memo to his staff, DOT chief information officer Daniel Mintz says he has placed "an indefinite moratorium" on the upgrades as "there appears to be no compelling technical or business case for upgrading to these new Microsoft software products. Furthermore, there appears to be specific reasons not to upgrade."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Vista, IE7 Banned By U.S. DOT

Comments Filter:
  • by 2.7182 (819680) on Friday March 02, 2007 @02:39PM (#18210392)
    This is an agency that is very conservative. I mean, it's illegal to have curved driver side mirrors in the US for pete's sake.
    • by Stanistani (808333) on Friday March 02, 2007 @03:02PM (#18210762) Homepage Journal
      *Warning*

      Operating systems may appear more compatible then they are...
    • by Divebus (860563) on Friday March 02, 2007 @03:12PM (#18210888)

      "..there appears to be no compelling technical or business case for upgrading to these new Microsoft software products. Furthermore, there appears to be specific reasons not to upgrade."

      The DOT is just figuring this out now? Hell, most of us knew this years ago.

    • by IDontAgreeWithYou (829067) on Friday March 02, 2007 @03:29PM (#18211088)
      Where I work we just switched to XP from Windows 2000 less than 2 years ago. We won't switch to Vista anytime in the near future (my guess is three years at least). This isn't a story, it's standard practice. In order to upgrade, you need to do a lot of testing and updating software, especially in-house apps. If they were using Linux, they wouldn't update the kernel as soon as it was available either.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        We won't be migrating to Vista either.

        Most likely upgrade path for us is to linux - but only when we either change our accounting package to one supported on that platform, or Intuit ports to linux, or Crossover Office fully supports the latest QB enterprise.

        Second likely path would be an OSX server -if and only if the price and licensing were not as heinous as they are with M$.

        Of course, the third option would be not to migrate at all.
        • by NatasRevol (731260) on Friday March 02, 2007 @09:17PM (#18214516) Journal
          OS X server licensing not as heinous as MS?

          Are you on crack? They're not in the same neighborhood, much less ball park.

          All Xserves come with unlimited client licenses. And the OS X Server software comes in two flavors, unlimited clients ($1k) and 10 clients ($500). The 10 client limitation ONLY applies to AFP connections. Everything else - mail, web, smb, ftp - is sill unlimited.

          Try putting 500 users on an Exchange server. Try putting 500 users on OS X Server. Spend the extra money on an all expenses paid conference trip to Vegas for two weeks.
        • by Pfhor (40220) on Friday March 02, 2007 @10:04PM (#18214734) Homepage
          Licensing isn't even in the same planet compared to MS.

          unlimited license of server is $1000. it COMES with the xserve.

          Maintenance (3 years of free upgrades, for 10.5-6, etc.) is another $1000, and entirely worth it.

          So initial license purchase on top of the hardware is $1000 if you want 3 years of major versions of os x server. From past experience, that saves you $1000, because 2 more updates will happen in the next 3 years.

          You are looking at $4,000 from apple vs $4313 from dell, but the dell only comes with 5 CALs (bare minimum 1u dual dual core xenon servers).
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by UncleMidriff (935137)
        I work as a contractor for the FAA, which is under the DOT, and around here, Windows XP is a brand new thing. We just switched from Windows 2000 less than a year ago, for the reasons you stated.

        I have no doubt that the FAA will switch to Vista a some point, but it will likely be around the time the next version of Windows comes out. I'm not holding out much hope for a switch to Linux then, either, as most of our in-house apps are .NET, VB 6, or even Access(!).
    • by thewils (463314) on Friday March 02, 2007 @03:51PM (#18211374) Journal
      Who is this pete? And why doesn't he like curved driver side mirrors?
  • As a webmaster (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pembo13 (770295) on Friday March 02, 2007 @02:40PM (#18210400) Homepage
    I wish they would at least move to IE7 if they are not going to move to Firefox/Mozilla. To stay with IE6 is just unfair.
    • Re:As a webmaster (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 02, 2007 @02:43PM (#18210462)
      To stay with IE6 is just unfair.

      It's not unfair, it's just plain stupid.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      To say there is reason specifically to not upgrade from IE6 is basically saying that they've developed a bunch of IE6-only web applications (with a bunch of ActiveX controls that require lax security settings perhaps.. or maybe just by developers that have never visited w3.org and have used Microsoft's [wrong] implementation of Javascript/HTML/CSS). They've screwed themselves on this one.. eventually as IE6 security updates stop coming (if they haven't already?) they're going to have endless problems when t
    • by twitter (104583) on Friday March 02, 2007 @04:13PM (#18211696) Homepage Journal

      I wish they would at least move to IE7 if they are not going to move to Firefox/Mozilla. To stay with IE6 is just unfair.

      From the fine article:

      Among the options the Transportation Department is weighing as a possible alternative or complement to Windows Vista are Novell's Suse Linux and, for a limited group of users, Apple's Macintosh hardware and software, he says.

      With an open mind like that, I'd be surprised if they were not running some kind of Netscape browser already. Give him some time and he's discover Firefox, Debian, Open Office and all sorts of great stuff.

  • by HangingChad (677530) on Friday March 02, 2007 @02:40PM (#18210422) Homepage

    It was like the sound of thousands of MSFT reps all calling their elected representatives at once.

  • Fixed. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 02, 2007 @02:42PM (#18210440)
    "there appears to be no compelling technical or business case for upgrading to any Microsoft software products."
    • by RingDev (879105)
      Someone has never used Windows ME.

      -Rick
      • by ckaminski (82854)
        I used WinME in a small office setting, and aside from ONE old DOS-based app that required share.com to run to increase stack space and ME removing that little tool, I had ZERO issues with it. It served a purpose. It put people on notice that XP was coming, and changes were afoot: get with the program or get left behind, pure 100% DOS compatibility is gone. WIN32 or bust.

        In that regard, 6 years later, I think it worked phenomenally well.

  • by throx (42621) on Friday March 02, 2007 @02:43PM (#18210464) Homepage
    What this is really saying is that IT in the DOT wants all their systems to be running the same set of software. Wouldn't this just make sense from an efficiency point of view? I mean, they probably have bans on running MacOS 7.1, Gentoo and OS2 4.0 as well so I don't get the big news.

    Did anyone seriously think large enterprise level customers would be jumping to Vista immediately, or even worse, letting their employees arbitrarily upgrade their own machines?
    • by Muad'Dave (255648)

      MOV AX,4c00h
      INT 21h
      Terminate with response code, right?
    • by div_2n (525075) on Friday March 02, 2007 @03:29PM (#18211090)
      It is no small deal when a government agency specifically bans products internally for very specific reasons. Case in point is that we do a lot of business with the US Government. There are websites we MUST use for business purposes. IE7 specifically doesn't work with how they have been designed. This means that as IT Manager, I have instituted the same policy (IE7 ban) here.

      The point is that there is a trickle down effect. Why do you think MS has fought the ODF issue in Mass. so hard?
      • by Shadow Wrought (586631) * <shadow,wrought&gmail,com> on Friday March 02, 2007 @04:14PM (#18211708) Homepage Journal
        Not just any Department either. But the one that is specifically taksed with investigating and reducing crashes;-)
      • by rapidweather (567364) on Friday March 02, 2007 @05:47PM (#18212942) Homepage
        An individual or family that has a fairly well-behaved Windows XP computer, decides not to run out and buy Windows Vista, or a new computer that has Vista preinstalled.
        Mostly because of the price, and secondly, because the Windows XP computer works well for them. And, they paid a good price for it, and would like to see if they can get some more miles out of it. A third, and perhaps major reason is that they are unclear as to "just what Vista does", besides look pretty.
        It would be Big News if Microsoft could say that Vista is a secure operating system, and that Vista spells the end of the viruses and trojans war.

        The point is that there is a trickle down effect.

        No one paid any attention to the individual or family that "decides not to run out and buy Windows Vista"

        But, a major government department that has perhaps thousands of computers, making this decision not to upgrade, and giving reasons, gets everyones attention.

        That individual or family now doesn't feel all alone, the U.S. DOT is on the same page as them.
        It's a matter of money for the individual, and a matter of money for the U.S. DOT, not to mention the other reasons they have, that are much more serious for Microsoft.
          Everyone thinks the Government has plenty of money, and "buys $100.00 toothbrushes", etc.
        Money to burn, literally. So, perhaps their reasons are more about the "other problems", rather than the money.

        What large organization or Government entity will be next?

        Please don't let this story get on Drudge Report. [drudgereport.com]
        Yes, I know Drudge Report has a little text box where one can send in story links.
        Don't all rush in and do that at once!
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@nOsPam.gmail.com> on Friday March 02, 2007 @02:44PM (#18210480) Journal
    Ok, so the Department of Transportation can't make a business case for it. Big deal.

    Allow me to strike some real fear into Microsoft. I work for a large Fortune 500 company with six digits of employees. While it's not our primary product, we write software as a lot of companies do.

    When IE7 came out, I decided to use my work legal machine to install it to try it out. This resulted in a next day 7 am nastygram from my system administrator stating that I am authorized to install any software that isn't married to the kernel. Not only were we told not to use it, we were threatened not to install it OR ELSE I wouldn't be able to enter my time or access shared community sites internal to the company.

    Because a lot of our company's tools don't work very nicely inside of it. So I'm still using IE6 and my company sure isn't going to upgrade my MS Office suite. Did I mention I write web applications and I can only test them in IE6 and Firefox?

    So what would scare Microsoft more? The fact that a government department isn't using it or the fact that many companies like mine are still writing stuff for the old software hence forcing our customers to stick with IE6 or any version of Firefox?
    • by Billosaur (927319) * <.ten.enilnotpo. .ta. .rehtorgw.> on Friday March 02, 2007 @03:03PM (#18210776) Journal

      Because a lot of our company's tools don't work very nicely inside of it. So I'm still using IE6 and my company sure isn't going to upgrade my MS Office suite. Did I mention I write web applications and I can only test them in IE6 and Firefox?

      And you can make a business case for that. Face it -- you develop for your company based (hopefully) on a set of standards for what the company will use as its backbone technology. I worked at a Fortune 500 once, and they held on to Netscape 4.7 for the longest time, because it was deployed everywhere (globally), and everything was designed to work for it. It wasn't the greatest browser, but it was still better than IE5 at some critical things.

      Change comes slowly at big companies/organizations, because it's due to economies of scale. The more machines you have to upgrade, the more applications you have to re-write to support the upgrades, the more the bottom line takes a pounding. Even if you manage to pull off a major, world-wide upgrade, you're going to spend the next couple of years fending off bugs that will turn up every day. Eventually you will get it stable -- just in time for the "next big thing".

      Companies cannot afford to go chasing every new technology or upgrade that comes along, without risking the stability that IT works so hard to create.

      • by CastrTroy (595695) on Friday March 02, 2007 @03:43PM (#18211286) Homepage
        I've never understood why companies base so many important applications off stuff like MS Office, or IE, or other apps that they don't have any control over. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to design applications in an environment that isn't as likely to stop working? I hear this complaint all the time. We can't change to OO.o, because we have a critical business app written in Excel. Why do companies continually use office suites and specific web browsers as development platforms? This never ends up being a good idea. I can understand web apps, but there should never be a reason to make the require something in IE or NS or any other browser. Just code them to work with standard HTML/CSS/JS and you won't have all these upgrade problems.
    • by kosmosik (654958)
      > Did I mention I write web applications and I can only
      > test them in IE6 and Firefox?

      1. You can use something like VMWare Server and running it to test under different OSes/browsers etc. In fact that is what most people do.

      2. I belive you can run IE7 without installing it. I've seen guides what you need to do make it work without actually installing it (just extracting files to your choosen folder, applying some patches on these files and it is it).
    • So what would scare Microsoft more? The fact that a government department isn't using it or the fact that many companies like mine are still writing stuff for the old software hence forcing our customers to stick with IE6 or any version of Firefox?

      Or maybe all the DOT contractors who now won't be using Vista and IE7? It's not just a government department, it's all the companies that provide services to that department. Never mind the role government plays as an example for many businesses to follow wrt i

    • and our IT guy says "Vista adoption by the company is a minimum of two years out."
    • by LWATCDR (28044)
      "Ok, so the Department of Transportation can't make a business case for it. Big deal. "
      Oh yes it is.
      The US government is Microsoft's biggest single customer.

      Yea your company means a lot more than some the local hardware store to Microsoft but the US Government + it's contractors are far more important.
      First the DOT next.... The DOD maybe?
    • by RetroGeek (206522) on Friday March 02, 2007 @03:32PM (#18211132) Homepage

      Did I mention I write web applications and I can only test them in IE6 and Firefox?

      Well I set up a machine specifically for IE7 testing. This is on an Intranet that is isolated from everything.

      After IE7 started it wanted to connect to the MSN site. I waited until it timed out, then set the start page to "about:blank".

      The next time IE7 started, it again wanted to connect to MSN. In fact it ALWAYS wants to connect to MSN, regardless of the blank page setting.

      Annoying as hell, and what is it reporting to Microsoft that is so important (to Microsoft)?
  • I say "thank you" to the DOT. It's not often we catch a break.
  • by Denial93 (773403) on Friday March 02, 2007 @02:46PM (#18210504)
    MS is bad!
    But the government never does anything right!
    But MS is bad!
    But the government never does anything right!
    But MS is bad!
    But the government never does anything right!
    *head explodes*
  • Why it's news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by truthsearch (249536) on Friday March 02, 2007 @02:47PM (#18210528) Homepage Journal
    I'm sure some are wondering why this is news. The US government is Microsoft's biggest customer, by far. If many agencies cut back on Microsoft purchases it will hurt Microsoft a lot. I would imagine one department's decision may set a precedent for others. And even if not, many investors watch for government spending news when deciding Microsoft's stock value. So any change in government policy can have huge implications for Microsoft.
    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      If many agencies cut back on Microsoft purchases it will hurt Microsoft a lot. I would imagine one department's decision may set a precedent for others.

      Well, according to TFA, this applies to 15,000 DOT computers and 45,000 FAA computers.

      I'm sure there will be similar stories as more Government Agencies say "Our main problem is that Program X doesn't work on Vista," but is 60k boxes really something to worry about?

      The DOT's ban on Vista, Internet Explorer 7, and Office 2007 applies to 15,000 computer users

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Well, I don't know about the whole government, but most of DoD uses Enterprise Licensing Agreements. These are contracts that provide access to classes of products rather than specific versions (say, 'desktop windows OS'). These run for multi-year periods before being renewed. Under an ELA, If you have XP, you are entitled to Vista IF you want it. Otherwise, you continue paying the license fee to keep the XP (OS) seat. This means that if no ELA customers adopt Vista, it doesn't effect MS at all, at lea
  • Good policy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bugnuts (94678) on Friday March 02, 2007 @02:49PM (#18210578) Journal
    If you allow people to randomly upgrade their departments without considering the interactivity implications, you could inadvertently cause a major problem in a large government organization.

    IMHO, it's a sound decision, and isn't a slap to microsoft at all. Everyone has to evaluate their own situation and upgrade if they feel it benefits them. Hell, having a win98 box (non-networked) and running a robot safely for the past 8 years is certainly safer than upgrading it. TFA was clearly biased, and made some idiotic remarks like "ZOMG, if the government doesn't buy vista, MS will go broke!" as if the millions of XP licenses are suddenly free.

    So, hold all the "haha" tags, because a thorough evaluation of major upgrades on critical infrastructure makes some sense.
  • by davidwr (791652) on Friday March 02, 2007 @02:50PM (#18210590) Homepage Journal
    In general, businesses shouldn't be "early adopters" of any technology unless there's a compelling business reason. Any "early adoption" should be in testbed or non-critical environments.

    I wish I could say "never upgrade without a compelling reason" but time marches on and lack of new software and the approaching end of vendor support can be very good reasons to stop using a product.

    With that in mind, don't even consider using a Windows-based system unless it's been around 6 months UNLESS there is a very good reason, and strongly consider moving away from it at least 6 months before end-of-life.

    Machines which are in special-purpose environments, such as machines which are not connected to any network, or which are adequately firewalled and whose connections with non-firewalled machines are heavily restricted, can continue to be used after end-of-life, but even these should be migrated to a vendor-supported environment or at least one where you have source code so you can fix problems yourself.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by allscan (1030606)
      Speaking of which, one of the main web applications I work on, for the US Gov't might I add, is still using Coldfusion 5. Talk about behind the times. We are only now upgrading to MX7.
    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      In general, businesses shouldn't be "early adopters" of any technology unless there's a compelling business reason. Any "early adoption" should be in testbed or non-critical environments.

      Your advice directly contradicts MS's Vista release strategy.

      If you recall, MS released Vista to businesses 3 months before the full commercial release. The goal was to get businesses to do a final beta test and even then, MS knew they still had big problems that needed to be addressed in SP1.

      Not to mention that MS was acti

  • by Colin Smith (2679)
    This'll last about 9 months.

    Every time MS come out with a new version of Office or Windows, the CIOs throw wobblies sending out warnings that no-one is to upgrade and they're going to stick with the existing version. They really should know better, all it takes is one person, usually somewhere near the top to install the new version, particularly of Office and the whole organisation then has to upgrade. Way to engineer that network effect.

     
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Alchemar (720449)
      You forgot a few steps...

      Anyone's system breaks beyond economical repair. Must buy a new system. New system comes with Vista installed. Boss gets new system, subordinate gets bosses old system, because IT guy works for boss. Now boss sends out letter or email that has M$ new "enhanced" format of HTML or doc, and everyone has to upgrade.
  • by sehlat (180760) on Friday March 02, 2007 @02:52PM (#18210614)
    Since he's clearly bent on saving taxpayer dollars by not climbing on the MSFT "rising license costs" escalator, the words he's going to be hearing soon are:

    "Have you ever thought about what you'll do after government service?"
  • non-story (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aapold (753705) on Friday March 02, 2007 @02:53PM (#18210642) Homepage Journal
    This is a non-story. It is perfectly normal for any organization to not adopt a new OS for a significant amount of time after it is released, years, even. There are enough things to harp on Vista without making things up and pretending they have significance...
    • pssst: "Among the options the Transportation Department is weighing as a possible alternative or complement to Windows Vista are Novell's Suse Linux and, for a limited group of users, Apple's Macintosh hardware and software, he says."
  • by StewedSquirrel (574170) on Friday March 02, 2007 @02:53PM (#18210644)
    It is very ordinary for a company (or government agency) to adopt a "wait and see" attitude toward new software. Most companies I've worked for will not install a new OS, new software, new firmware, new drivers or whatever until they've gone through at least one revision.

    Recently because of Microsofts crappy handling of IE7 upgrades (flagging them as "critical updates"), we had a number of remote users on IE7 and our SSL VPN appliances simply would not work. I had to call a moritorium on upgrading to IE7 and deployed the Microsoft "prevent IE7 update" patch in order to stop these critical updates.

    Then, I had to use early-release code for our Juniper VPN concentrator, which broke about half a dozen other things.... Finally, after a few weeks, new a firmware revision for the Juniper VPN came out which enabled me to get the box back to a stable state AND allow IE7 to be used.

    But if we had simply called a "ban" on IE7 upgrades in the first place, it would have saved me a lot of headache and our company a lot of productivity.

    This is not a "Microsoft sux" decision, but merely a business-case against early-release software that they would likely take whether it was Microsoft or Juniper or Cisco or Oracle or whatever...

    Now, Microsoft's handling of the IE7 "critical update" bullcrap.... that falls clearly in the arena of "Microsoft sux".

    Stew
  • by jeevesbond (1066726) on Friday March 02, 2007 @02:55PM (#18210666) Homepage

    I can think of one very big reason to upgrade to IE7 (unless Opera/Firefox is an option) and that's better web standards support. The web development community is going to drop support for IE6 very quickly (I give it approx. 6 months) because the standards support is so bad.

    IE7 has a long way to go with this, but it's a massive improvement [msdn.com] over 6. It's not as if it costs any money, aside from bandwidth, to download it.

    Obviously I would advise them to just use Opera or Firefox and switch to Linux while they're at it. But if that isn't an option they should at least take the free IE upgrade. The decision to not upgrade Office is a sound one though.

    • by geekoid (135745)
      too new, too risky.
      No large agency should be running ie7 for at least 18 months.

      At that point evaluate it again.
    • by jZnat (793348) *
      Completely agreed. Nobody has an excuse not to have at least IE7 if not another web browser installed (e.g. Firefox, Opera) for normal web usage.

      It'd make more sense to have IE6 for your intranet applications that require it along with Firefox or Opera (or anything other than IE really) for normal web usage than to stick with IE6 outright. IE doesn't seem like it was designed for the internet; it was designed for the intranet, and IE7 finally adds on sandboxing that makes it quite a bit more apt for inter
  • Routine.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by joshetc (955226) on Friday March 02, 2007 @02:59PM (#18210730)
    I work for DHS and we just migrated to XP / Office 2003. It is routine for government agencies (just about all major computer systems really) to wait a LONG time before upgrading.. Everyone already knew people wouldn't mass-migrate to Vista until at least SP1 was out...
  • why does the department of transportation have the authority to tell me what software i can and cant run?
  • by connorbd (151811) on Friday March 02, 2007 @03:02PM (#18210766) Homepage
    I've heard of people saying "But I don't want version 5! I want you guys to make version 3 work the way it's supposed to!"

    I really think a lot of nontechnical users couldn't care less about new features or redesigned interfaces -- what they've got works, and they don't want it messed with. So every time a software company adds a bunch of features or redesigns the interface, there's a good number of the user base that is going to be seriously ticked off because they have to retrain on all the new stuff.

    Microsoft is one company that doesn't even come close to getting that. I've seen some of their smart house ideas for example -- their designs solve problems that people don't have to begin with. (Is anyone really in such a state that having the fridge track the RFID chips in your food packaging will improve things? Well, handicapped people and shut-ins, maybe, but for the vast majority of people it's overkill at best.)
    • I really think a lot of nontechnical users couldn't care less about new features or redesigned interfaces -- what they've got works, and they don't want it messed with.

      Problem is that Microsoft wants to be all things to all people. They think all those people who've switched to Firefox will switch back by giving them a spangly new interface (and throw standards advocates a bone too). They panic about it, get all worried that losing IE usage share means losing their monopoly, the result is IE7.

      Their plan i

  • "Banned" is too strong a term. It's an engineering decision.

    Just say "Upgrading to Vista is about as appropriate as upgrading to a steam-powered ornithopter."
  • The Microsoft upgrade virus model explained:

    1. Come out with new OS and release into the market environment.
    2. Stop upgrading older OS versions and tell vendors they won't have drivers etc. approved.
    3. Current OS gains foothold on market at a virulent rate, quashing older instances of the competition (the older OS version) and tout this slow but eventually exponential customer adoption a success.
    4. Evolve OS into the next version and release into the same environment and repeat steps 2 & 3.
    5. Market evo
  • by LoudMusic (199347) on Friday March 02, 2007 @03:18PM (#18210956)
    Microsoft employs thousands of people as well - I wonder what their standing is on upgrading to Vista and associated products. Sure they get the software for free and the hardware for cheap, but it's still thousands of computers I bet they're replacing too.

    And what's happening to all of these displaced PCs? Someone should build a cluster!
  • Ban? Hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ksalter (1009029) on Friday March 02, 2007 @03:20PM (#18210982)
    From the article:

    Schmidt says the Transportation Department hasn't ruled out upgrading its computers to Windows Vista if all of its concerns about the new operating system -- the business version of which was launched late last year -- can be resolved. "We have more confidence in Microsoft than we would have 10 years ago," says Schmidt. "But it always makes sense to look at the security implications, the value back to the customer, and those kind of issues."
    emphasis added

    Funny how the positives from the articles aren't mentioned.

    I also like the use of the word "ban", which doesn't appear anywhere in the memo. No negative implications with that word.

    If you are going to bash someone, at least be a bit more subtle.

  • Realistically, any decent sized organization will have the exact same policy written or not. The one thing that makes them special is that people found out about it. Give a few years, they'll have a migration strategy laid out and away they go.

    Hopefully, that migration strategy won't be to Vista. One can dream...
  • by eno2001 (527078) on Friday March 02, 2007 @04:09PM (#18211632) Homepage Journal
    I get sick of hearing all the lies and FUD that the anti-Windows crowd spreads all over the place. Microsoft , is the unsung hero of the computer world and internet commerce. If it wasn't for them, we wouldn't have the booming businesses bringing millions of dollars into the hands of simple and plain people like you and me all around the world. Microsoft beyond bringing startling innovation and major progress to the computer world has also indirectly created an infinite number of business and wealth creation opportunities with every PC out there whether in business or at home on your desk. That alone is the MOST compelling reason. By preventing the distribution of Microsoft's latest and greatest to the largest possible number of PCs, these sorts of actions are essentially trying to prevent the lubrication of the orifices of commerce. I plea with you to please reconsider your actions.

    Respectfully,
    Davis Hawke
  • by ChrisA90278 (905188) on Friday March 02, 2007 @05:52PM (#18213006)
    Our company has gone further than the DOT. Not only is upgrade not allowed but a PC with Vista is not allowed to connect to the corporate network. Our government customer has banned Vista from it's network too and we need to inter operate. The DOT is not alone. Many organizations are going to wait and do 6 or 12 months of testing first.
  • by Synic (14430) on Friday March 02, 2007 @06:39PM (#18213456) Homepage Journal
    SAP Portal software doesn't work with IE7 without using a recent patch and huge orgs can't patch SAP without a shitstorm of trouble, so they just ban IE7 altogether. Oddly enough Firefox works with those versions of SAP Portal (although suffering from some minor rendering bugs causing very wide pages with scrollbars).

The only problem with being a man of leisure is that you can never stop and take a rest.

Working...