Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Windows Operating Systems Software Businesses IT

Vista at Risk of Being Bypassed by Businesses 729

narramissic writes "With Windows 7 due in late 2009 or 2010, many businesses may choose to wait it out rather than make the switch to Vista. According to some analysts, Vista uptake at this point really depends on how good Vista SP1 (due in Q1, 2008) is. If it doesn't smooth over all the problems, companies are much more likely to stick with XP. And that holds especially true for those businesses that follow the every-other-release rule." Note for Microsoft: Allow us to natively disable trackpads.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vista at Risk of Being Bypassed by Businesses

Comments Filter:
  • and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by acvh ( 120205 ) <geek@m s c i g a r> on Saturday November 17, 2007 @05:33PM (#21392433) Homepage
    they'll hold off on switching to Windows 7 until SP1 hits.

    Maybe this whole "upgrade the OS" thing isn't such a good business plan after all?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Technician ( 215283 )
      Maybe this whole "upgrade the OS" thing isn't such a good business plan after all?

      Maybe if they did it well, it might pay off. Windows XP is ancient. For a release, it is very old. They missed on the upgrade the OS thing poorly with Vista. Many are moving on to Apple or Linux instead.

      My wife has picked up a Vista laptop to use in class stuff. She needed to play a DVD. After waiting for the boot dialog boxes to quit and closing them all. she started the DVD using an external monitor (dual monitor setup
      • by ricebowl ( 999467 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @06:26PM (#21392897)

        The Vista [laptop] interrupts business presentations.

        Yeah, but this is Slashdot, and it's a Microsoft OS. You can't just focus on the stuff it gets right; we want to hear about the cons too...

      • Re:and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Volante3192 ( 953645 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @06:33PM (#21392939)
        Maybe if they did it well, it might pay off. Windows XP is ancient. For a release, it is very old. They missed on the upgrade the OS thing poorly with Vista. Many are moving on to Apple or Linux instead.

        Silly question, but why upgrade all the time anyway? If something works, why replace it? What's going to come out that will magically increase productivity?
        • Re:and then.... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by hdparm ( 575302 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @07:24PM (#21393301) Homepage
          Silly question, but why upgrade all the time anyway?

          Microsoft does this with updates. Sometimes it's sensible to EOL a product (stop releasing bug/security fixes), usually when the new one, supposedly better, is released. They did this with Win2K just before the Vista was out but they had XP to lean on. Then, they were to EOL XP, too - just to boost Vista sales. Not going to work, though - Vista is bad for business. There are too many issues with it - confusing licensing model, bad hardware support, bad apps support, you name it.

          This time around businesses might just hold onto XP until new Windows is released and it proves to be an improvement over XP.

          Microsoft is not as strong in a desktop area as it used to be, after all the goodness coming out of Linux distros and Apple. If they try to be tough and EOL XP while Vista is the only MS alternative, it'll be like trowing a chair in their own face.
        • by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @09:19PM (#21394037) Journal

          Silly question, but why upgrade all the time anyway? If something works, why replace it? What's going to come out that will magically increase productivity?

          You must be some sort of Communist.
        • by SmurfButcher Bob ( 313810 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @10:59PM (#21394603) Journal
          Because! The new OS is faster!

          Really! New OSes are so much faster, I recently brought an old 386-16 back into service by putting Vista on it, and it easily outperforms the latest quad-cores running XP and 2K3.

        • Re:and then.... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by troll ( 593289 ) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @12:54AM (#21395199) Journal
          Because the definition of "works" changes all the time as well.

          5 years ago I would have told you a 800x600 15" display works. Try upgrading to a 1600x1200 20", or better yet 20" 1600x1200 next to another monitor for dual monitor use. This also works, and works so much better that once you adapt to the new possibilities, the old way no longer 'works'.

          Same with internet connectivity. Disk space. Etc.

          Admittedly hardware, but you could say the same thing about some revolutionary software breakthroughs; Protected memory, fair scheduling, good filesystems, network filesystems, etc.

          Ideally what you have now will always work for what you do now, but will limit you in what you can do in the future. You have to update what you have to update what you can then grow to do.

          The trick is to weight he risks. If theres no noticable improvement, upgrade somewhere that isn't expected to be stable first. Test your updates. Make sure nothing breaks before you roll them out.
          • Re:and then.... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Volante3192 ( 953645 ) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @01:11AM (#21395267)
            I'm gonna stick by what I said, but going to expand on it, somewhat.

            I guess my key point was specifically related to upgrading to Vista. It makes no sense, outside of legacy apps, for anyone to still be stuck with anything predating 2000 if you need a Windows OS. Now, on a personal level, I'd say go with XP and 2003. They're a bit easier to support; but if you have a solid 2000 environment and there's no benefits to the new environment, stick with 2000.

            I think MS plateaued Windows with XP/2003. Personally, I'd say at this time just focus on perfecting those systems. Apple can siphon off customers with minor releases. I mean, here's a thought. Why not release a $50 minor release every year. It can have a roll up plus added functionality that's been discovered over the past year. If they did that for XP, that's (a) essentially the cost of Vista by now and (b) would have kept businesses happy since they all splurged on that Software Assurance deal which, in retrospect, was a really shitty deal for the companies. ...and while I'm dreaming, I'd also like a pony.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by heybo ( 667563 )

          Silly question, but why upgrade all the time anyway? If something works, why replace it? What's going to come out that will magically increase productivity?
          People tend to forget one of Murphy's Laws of Engineering. "If it ain't broke don't fuck with it."
        • Re:and then.... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Almahtar ( 991773 ) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @03:52PM (#21399751) Journal

          What's going to come out that will magically increase productivity?
          Virtual desktops, revision control built into the file system [], dedicated swap partitions (ever gotten a fragmented swap file in windows? Sucks ASS!), support for remote file systems for every application (via SSHFS or SambaFS) so you can hit "save" in your text editor and it saves the file on your web server... seriously I could go on for quite a while, and I'm not even including Apple's advancements here, just Linux desktops. Throw expose (or 'scale' in Linux) the like in there and you have a world of difference.

          I've gotten so spoiled with Linux desktop environments that I feel constricted and frustrated when I'm forced to use Windows. It makes a very noticeable difference. Browsing the web and something reminds you that you need to do task X, but you don't want to forget what you're doing now? Switch to a new desktop and do it, then switch back and everything is how you left it.

          You needs may differ from mine, but I can tell you there are plenty of ways to "magically" increase productivity by switching operating systems for a lot of people.
      • Re:and then.... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by mdwh2 ( 535323 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @06:49PM (#21393039) Journal
        Many are moving on to Apple or Linux instead.

        Citation needed.

        I think many people are staying with Windows XP because their computers are good enough. And that doesn't translate to throwing out their entire machine and spending loads on a Mac.

        Hell, I'm still on Windows 2000, works fine for me!

        And the only reason Vista nags so much, is because people (presumably Mac users) slagged off XP so much for not asking you, and said how OS X was better because you had to enter your password to do such things. So that's who we have to thank for that!
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Technician ( 215283 )
          Citation needed.

          Open your eyes and look. My dad bought a Mac Laptop and has migrated to Linux. I'm typing this right now on an ex-Windows machine. Do you know anyone talking about the release of Gutsy? Pay attention.

          Anyway if you want ones in the news.. here;

 [] Open the links for the list of businesses in each sector using Linux.
          And ones that we know about from the SCO debacle are Auto Zone and Daimler Chrystler.

          Hell, I'm still on W
      • Re:and then.... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by JCSoRocks ( 1142053 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @07:00PM (#21393121)
        People seem to forget what a big upgrade Windows 95, 98 and 2000 were. The improvements in stability, security, ease of use, and productivity were pretty significant. XP's nice, but even it didn't usurp 2000 the way 2000 did 98. I don't think any businesses "skipped" those releases because they were on some plan. If they chose not to upgrade it was either cost related, effort / time related or they had some legacy crap that had compatibility issues with the newest version. Although XP and Vista aren't quite as big of an improvement I think the real mistake with Vista was the pricing, the confusing versions, and the high system requirements - and I'm not talking RAM, RAM is cheap and XP "required a bunch" when it first came out too. I'm talking about the video and processor requirements.

        Regarding your wife's laptop - boot dialog boxes? What are you talking about? Do you have a ton of crapware on there? Are you talking about waiting for the BIOS to do its checks? I've played countless DVD's on my Vista box using WMP and I've never had a problem with a single one. I've definitely never had any Java related prompts. Either your DVD came with some kind of DRM / player installer or you're using some craptastic 3rd party player. Either way, I wouldn't blame Vista because you didn't test your presentation beforehand.

        Dual monitors? Of course Vista works with dual monitors, so does XP. I'm running two monitors on Vista right now, and I can hook up four.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by vertinox ( 846076 )
      Maybe this whole "upgrade the OS" thing isn't such a good business plan after all?

      I don't know why this guy is marked as a troll, but from a business perspective Vista does not offer anything to security or productivity that WinXP can't provide already provide with the proper patches. Of course there is Office 2007 (which I do like personally) but that still runs fine on WinXP.

      Secondly, most admins in IT loathe change and the unknown. They are familiar with WinXP and all its quirks and the desire to be "cut
    • by reporter ( 666905 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @07:24PM (#21393297) Homepage
      Software upgrades in business need justification. Money is a precious resource, and good managers do not squander it.

      A 1-gigahertz desktop running Windows XP with ECC memory meets the needs of most businesses. They had a genuine need to upgrade from the MS-DOS-based operating systems (OSes) like Windows 98 when Windows XP was launched. The former is just too unreliable, but the latter approached Linux-level reliability.

      Going from Windows XP to Vista does not buy you a quantum leap in reliability. The latter has a nicer GUI than the former, but a nicer user interface is not enough to justify spending another $1000+ on a machine for your secretary.

      During this obssessive drive to faster, bigger, and badder computers and OSes, eventually the technology reaches a point at which it exceeds the needs of the customers. We have reached that point -- that knee of the technology curve. Any further technical advancements beyond the knee does not bring new customers to computer company XYZ. The computer-systems market now resembles or will soon resemble the automotive market: a replacement market for broken devices.

      I do not replace my Chevrolet Camaro when a new sports car enters the automotive market. I replace my Camaro when it becomes too expensive to repair.

      No spokesperson for a computer company ever talks about the arrival of the "knee". It means flat sales and thin margins for the company.

      Well, the knee has arrived. The personal-computer industry is now a mature industry like the automotive industry. Welcome to flat sales and used-computer salescritters.

    • by Rabid Cougar ( 643908 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @09:22PM (#21394051)

      I'm astonished that I have yet to see the best reason not to roll out Vista in a business environment mentioned. The answer is quite simple.

      Vista kills productivity, yet offers no real value in return.

      In order to run Vista where I work, we would have to replace every single machine we have. That's over 100 desktops and laptops--not cheap. Granted, some of those computers need to be replaced, but that's beside the point. Even crappy P4, 1GHZ, 256MB RAM, on-board video computers run XP better than a brand new Dell laptop with 2GB RAM and a 256MB video card runs Vista (it was running Vista Business Premium). Why in the @#$%! should we pay a boatload of money to slash our workers' productivity? As far as I can see, there is absolutely no business case for Vista whatsoever. Until such a day as there is, then you can bet your bottom dollar I won't allow a move to Vista to kill ours.

      Granted, from a technological standpoint, Vista is crap. But that's not the argument to make to your superiors when opposing it. Show them how it will hurt your bottom line. That'll get their attention.

      • by No-op ( 19111 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @09:47PM (#21394201)
        thank you for finally saying this - I've been reading comments on this sort of thread for a while waiting for a reasonable person to explain this to the kiddies.

        All technology aside, replacing the entire look'n'feel for our user base (office 2007 + Vista) would be a huge productivity killer for months, with no benefit whatsoever.

        I'd like to have some better feature support, and I know that Vista has some sort of "corporate desktop theme", but the training overhead just kills me every time I think about it.

        Now from a tech perspective - I can buy a brand new core 2 duo based desktop that will run XP at light speed, or stick them with a slow and bloated vista install... I'm personally inclined to skip vista and use what is "known" by our user base.

        Does it bother me that we're rolling out new machines with an OS from 2001? yes. yes it does. but Vista isn't a solution in any way, shape, or form.
  • by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @05:36PM (#21392461) Homepage Journal
    Truth is, while holding off Vista might be an idea, what guarantee is there that Windows 7 will be any better. In many ways Vista seems to be a symptom of a failed development process, bad priorities and not understanding their users. When you have five years to developer a product and this is what you get, something is wrong.

    Vista is not a total failure, but its not a success either.
    • by Entropius ( 188861 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @05:41PM (#21392509)
      When you have five years to developer a product and this is what you get

      Your grammar error calls to mind a metaphor.

      If you take a badly exposed piece of film and put in the developer too long, you get out ... a bad, *overdeveloped* piece of film.

      Vista is the same way. The development time is really irrelevant: the fact that they spent a long time on it just means that it has *lots* of shitty features rather than only a few.
  • disable trackpads? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Yath ( 6378 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @05:37PM (#21392469) Journal

    Note for Microsoft: Allow us to natively disable trackpads.

    What's this about? Anyone want to clue me in?
    • by ion.simon.c ( 1183967 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @05:50PM (#21392587)
      If you take a break from typing, and rest your palm on the portion of the laptop closest to you, you'll move the mouse cursor. Maybe you'll even click a button!
    • by pionzypher ( 886253 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @07:20PM (#21393255)
      Sure, for many the intellipoint is much less intrusive and more accurate. Some laptops have both. While typing the palm can brush the trackpad, inadvertently clicking and shifting the cursor (a pain while typing) of activating gui elements such as a back button. Most 3rd party driver/control apps allow this to be disabled. I've never seen a way to do that in vista natively.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Cairnarvon ( 901868 )
      It's about Zonk for some reason considering the fact that out-of-the-box Vista won't let you disable trackpads on laptops to be more important than its millions of other failures, as if people are switching away from Windows just because of that feature.
  • vista system hog (Score:5, Insightful)

    by timmarhy ( 659436 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @05:37PM (#21392471)
    The thing that bugs me the most is the additional system resources it hogs - i buy a pc to run applications not run an OS. look at anything that runs both vista an xp and xp always has lower requirments. MS would win a lot of fans if they made OS releases they used the same or less resources instead of massive bloatware, or atleast show SOMETHING useful that's hogging the additional memory and CPU time.
    • by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @05:51PM (#21392601) Homepage Journal

      The thing that bugs me the most is the additional system resources it hogs - i buy a pc to run applications not run an OS.
      Actually I'm pretty happy about it -- what now gets sold as the cheap bottom level spec PCs are actually very fast with Linux. The extra resources that Vista hogs has helped drag down hardware costs on an economy of scale basis (because now every machine needs at least 1GB of RAM etc.). As long as you don't use Vista that just means a free performance boost when you buy a new PC. I've certainly enjoyed it.
  • by toby ( 759 ) * on Saturday November 17, 2007 @05:39PM (#21392483) Homepage Journal
    It's not as if spectacularly better alternatives don't exist.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )
      I think I can sum it up with one sentence I heard while working consulting work: "The users all use IE, except IT where we all use Firefox". It doesn't matter if it's better, it's what users know and you don't want the training cost. When it comes to mail systems, all those I've worked for have had either Lotus Notes or Outlook, and several have been migrating towards Outlook. Office has ruled supreme for quite some time. The cheapest job training a company can have is not needing any training at all, and i
  • by Joe The Dragon ( 967727 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @05:39PM (#21392485)
    Windows 7 VMing of all Unsigned code is bigger trun off and will likely brake alot more apps and drivers then what vista broke.

    The VMing sound like a good idea but knowing MS they will just find a way to mess up or drive ram and cpu use for it to very high levels.

    Also one VM per app will not work that well.
  • by jcr ( 53032 ) <jcr.mac@com> on Saturday November 17, 2007 @05:41PM (#21392507) Journal
    So, they already waited for Longhorn, which cratered. There's a very slow uptake of the 1 1/2 year rush-job that they called "vista", and now businesses are expected to wait for another MS development cycle of indeterminate duration?

    I really don't know why MSFT's shareholders haven't lynched Ballmer by now.

  • A company I was recently worked for was still using Windows95. As the workstations died they upgraded them to 2000.

    Novell 4 (check)
    Windows 95 (check)
    $2000.00 /month on a 64k ISDN line used for a VPN (yes I know)

    Glad I don't work there anymore
  • And will it... (Score:2, Insightful)

    Be on time? Of course not.

    Will it be full of anti-user software and self-disabling drivers? Absolutely.

    Im just about fed up with Microsoft.

    Im used to the music and video companies treating customers like criminals, but MS with their remote computer deactivation garbage sets them far over the line. As far as I'm concerned, Im going Ubuntu and Debian.

    BTW, Ubuntu likes my new T61 thinkpad. And IBM/Lenovo is Linux friendly.
  • by Coryoth ( 254751 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @05:45PM (#21392553) Homepage Journal
    At first glance this doesn't appear that bad for Microsoft -- so businesses wait, and then buy a different product from Microsoft; it delays income, but isn't that bad. The problem for Microsoft here is that it gives desktop linux an extra year or two to keep improving. The reality is that Linux on the desktop, whethr you consider it "ready" yet or not, has been improving at a far faster rate than Windows has. Just compare Windows98 and the contemporary releases of Linux (around Redhat 5.2 I think, back when they were still using Afterstep as the default environment) and then compare Vista to Ubuntu 7.10: any gaps have narrowed dramatically. Give linux another couple of years to make comparative gains and things may look inteesting when it comes time for businesses to look at OS upgrades -- do you move to Windows 7, or Linux? Both will probably represent almost equally large changes and require as much retraining as each other, and by that point Linux may well be a very good desktop option. Combine that with the fact that Linux (via wine) might actually be as good as Windows 7 at running your old win32 software (given Vistas difficulties with such things) and Microsoft may have a potential revolt on their hands.

    The simple reality is tht, once you all out of step on the treadmill, then working to stay on it doesn't continue to look as attractive as it used to. Lock in is quite important to Microsoft's business model, and failing to keep businesses in step with current MS trends is actually quite a serious potential problem brewing.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 2nd Post! ( 213333 )
      Everything you say is true about Linux also applies to Mac OS X. Linux needs to keep an eye on Apple, too.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by SEE ( 7681 )
        As long as OS X doesn't run on white boxes, nobody has to worry about OS X.
    • by AsmordeanX ( 615669 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @06:55PM (#21393081)
      Linux as it is now will NEVER be any sort of viable replacement to Windows. The biggest problem Linux has is its lack of a central authority. There are too many distributions with low standardization.

      Linux could most certainly power a strong desktop client but with the direction it has at the moment and always has had that won't happen.

      Not to mention that my PC at home running Vista will run any Windows application you throw at it. You claim of "Vistas difficulties with such things" seems a bit unfounded to me. I agree that you sometimes might have to drop into emulation mode which should be transparent to the user and therefore needs some attention. However, I have yet to find any app that won't work on Vista.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Coryoth ( 254751 )

        Linux as it is now will NEVER be any sort of viable replacement to Windows. The biggest problem Linux has is its lack of a central authority. There are too many distributions with low standardization.

        Ultimately that is simply an artifact of the current niche status of Linux. If linux ever started to get real traction and market share on the desktop do you really think this would still be the case? The reality is that if linux gets popular on the desktop it will be a few particular distros, maybe Ubuntu, Redhat and Novell at most. And those 3 distros will be all the avergae public will know of linux -- the other distros will continue to exist of course, in their small market niches, but no-one except th

      • Linux as it is now will NEVER be any sort of viable replacement to Windows. The biggest problem Linux has is its lack of a central authority. There are too many distributions with low standardization.

        Because I understand where you're coming from but you seem confused about something. Linux doesn't have to do shit to succeed. That's the kernel and you can harp on it till you're blue in the face but you're still going to be harping on the wrong portion. And before you get the idea that what I'm pointing out

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jollyreaper ( 513215 )

        Linux as it is now will NEVER be any sort of viable replacement to Windows. The biggest problem Linux has is its lack of a central authority. There are too many distributions with low standardization.

        You don't need a central authority, just a proper distro. I suck at Linux in general and am in no way qualified to pull together a whole system from scratch. But I don't have to. Pop in Ubuntu and I'm ready to go. The Ubuntu people are handling all of the vetting of software going into the distro.

        If a couple of the major software companies out there decided to set a target for a Linux distro for business, call it Biznux, that would work just fine. If you put a few big names on it like IBM, Sun, Adobe, poin

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by visualight ( 468005 )
        This comes up all the time. Please stop saying this. A central authority or "standard" is not necessary for anything to run on Linux, and it is not a barrier to anyone wanting to use a Linux distro.
        Open office runs on all distros and looks the same on all of them, so does ut2k4 for that matter. Anyone who thinks this "too many distros" objection is a valid point (MODERATOR) doesn't have enough perspective to be commenting on the subject.
    • by Javaman59 ( 524434 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @07:17PM (#21393231)

      The reality is that Linux on the desktop, whethr you consider it "ready" yet or not, has been improving at a far faster rate than Windows has. Just compare Windows98 and the contemporary releases of Linux (around Redhat 5.2 I think...
      That's been my experience with Linux and Windows. Back in 1998 colleagues were telling me that Linux is great, and can do everything Windows can. So I took a look (at RedHat 5.2 actually) and saw their default desktop, Afterstep, and thought "what a joke!". At the time I was using Windows NT at work, and it just ran beautifully, in stark contrast to Linux, which couldn't do anything without a lot tweaking. Since then, I've tried Linux from time to time, and noticed the gap closing rapidly, and wha'ts more, the things the Linux has always done better (the command line, open standards, loads of free software, etc..) it still does better. I personally have no intention of handing over hundred's of dollars for Vista, ie. I'm getting off the treadmill, and now might be the time when businesses start doing that as well. The main problem will be legacy applications.
  • by LinDVD ( 986467 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @05:47PM (#21392571)
    For example, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) is moving to Windows Vista on all their workstations in 2008, even though they don't NEED it. Part of this is due to a federal mandate, and part of it is because Microsoft has it as part of their service agreement. Service pack 1 for Windows Vista has nothing to do with the USCG's standard workstation operating system policy.
  • by Joe The Dragon ( 967727 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @05:47PM (#21392577)
    M$ need to move corporate keys back to XP system.
    Businesses do not like the idea that there vista system must call in to M$ to check there key from time to time or go in to limited functionality mode or use a key sever that calls in to M$ and systems can also go in to limited functionality mode if the sever / network goes down.

    And if vista starts to gain more ground this may end become a big problem that limited testing be for a big roll is something that you may not run in to at that time and you may have to hope for a fast fix it your key gets blacklisted by mistake and most of your systems go in to limited functionality mode.
  • by Peter Cooper ( 660482 ) * on Saturday November 17, 2007 @05:51PM (#21392603) Homepage Journal
    If Vista was 3 years late, why would anyone trust Microsoft's projections now? If "Windows 7" is going to hit in 2009, that's probably going to mean 2012 or 2011 at best.
  • by PingXao ( 153057 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @05:53PM (#21392631)
    IIRC Windows ME was a bust right out of the gate. We have seen some grudging indications from MS that Vista (aka Windows ME II) isn;t meeting the expectations they had for it in terms of adoption and implementation. How long until people say, "Yep, Vista sure was a bust!"? Maybe MS will never say it, but what will it take to convince the popular press and cheerleader factions that Vista, in fact, was a horrible OS?

    The cynic in me says it doesn't matter because the DRM core of the OS will never get the criticism it deserves and, thus, any follow-on OS will be just as bad. No OS that manages someone else's rights without giving a hoot for mine will ever run on my hardware.
  • The vista push (Score:4, Insightful)

    by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <skennedy@AAAtpno ... inus threevowels> on Saturday November 17, 2007 @06:15PM (#21392807) Homepage
    Organizations don't want to install vista. Check. What makes us think the successor to Vista will be recieved any better?

    Instead, the real danger to MS is a push to thin clients. I've heard rumblings lately, and if the next OS dissappoints like vista, you can expect huge deployments of thin clients coming. I know it would make more financial sense for my location when time comes to upgrade from XP to go with thin clients chatting with a windows terminal server. There is risk involved with this step, but if we see another crappy OS come out, it will be the justification I need to validate the switch over.

    Just my thoughts on the matter.
  • by TheVoice900 ( 467327 ) <> on Saturday November 17, 2007 @06:30PM (#21392909)
    At my company, we don't have a single Windows machine in sight. Do we miss it? Not at all. Our desktops are all macs, our workstations Linux, our servers are Linux and FreeBSD. After having worked at several companies that used Windows extensively, I can say I have no desire to ever go back to an environment like that. OS X and Linux are just so much more flexible, and have far less management overhead than any Windows environment.
  • by flyingfsck ( 986395 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @06:44PM (#21393001)
    As the Microsoft bloatware continues to sink into a morass of wasted processor cycles, the performance gap with Linux and Macintosh provides a great impetus to the adoption of Unix systems. The funny thing is that it used to be the other way around. Back in the 1980s, MS DOS and Win3.1 was touted as 'more efficient' than Unix systems.
  • by BulletMagnet ( 600525 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @07:06PM (#21393161)
    As the IT Manager for a medium sized regional construction company, I've played with Vista for a year and frankly, I get frustrated with it - and if I do, I can't imagine how my userbase which has computer savy ranging from "I have servers at home too!" to "How do I turn this on again?" and there's no sense overburdening one's self with a massive amount of support calls with the lesser skilled people fighting with Vista's UI and all the other traps in the OS itself. (Hey, these people build buildings for a living, they shouldn't need to fight the OS on their laptops)

    Vista might not be the utter stinking turd that ME was but it's a painful bowel movement nonetheless.

    Here's to hoping Microsoft gets on the clue bus with Windows 7...

  • by zerofoo ( 262795 ) on Saturday November 17, 2007 @08:17PM (#21393661)
    And this quote from the article proves it:

    "They wouldn't be licensing Windows desktop if they didn't have the intent to deploy Vista"

    Actually, yes "they" would.

    If you are buying machines for any reason, why wouldn't you buy the Vista licensing and use your downgrade rights to run XP? The volume licenses cost the same - why limit your choices?

    Microsoft really needs to start listening to their customers.

  • by kurt555gs ( 309278 ) <kurt555gs&ovi,com> on Sunday November 18, 2007 @02:47AM (#21395673) Homepage
    Edsel at Risk of Being Bypassed by Customers.


  • by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @06:05AM (#21396327)

    You know, in reading this article, I have just been enlightened. I realize that all this time, I was confused because I didn't understand the purpose of Windows Vista. You see, I thought it was Microsoft's way of making a really, really funny joke. I mean, what else could Vista possibly be? Let's examine Vista and see why this is so:

    • Every other button you push, the entire screen goes black and it asks you, "Did you really push that button?"
    • The system is so excruciatingly slow that even on the newest hardware, it is much, much slower than XP on much older hardware.
    • Boatloads of drivers and applications that worked fine under XP do not function under Vista. The result is that things like printers that were supported just fine under XP do not work under Vista. The result is that you have to throw away your perfectly good printer or whatever, and get a new one, as if having just bought a brand new computer and dropping a ton of money on Vista Ultimate isn't enough of an expense.
    • The Vista installer takes F*O*R*E*V*E*R to load, and then gleefully tells you that Windows Vista "saves you time," as if to demonstrate that if the installer is this slow, wait 'till you experience the operating system!
    • The colors chosen for the Vista desktop and windows are such an eyesore that even their own mother couldn't possibly like them. I'd like to know what the graphic designers were smoking, because I want some.
    • There are not one or two but six different versions of Vista. Do they suddenly think they're in the Linux business because it seems they want to scream out, "We're just like Linux; we have too many distros to choose from too!" (Well, I think someone mentioned that RMS wanted Vista to be called GNU/Vista or something like that.)
    • Even if you're an expert XP user, you have to completely relearn how to use a computer when you downgrade to Vista, because everything is so significantly different that you'll have a field day just figuring out how to move a file from one place to another.
    So, I mean, what else but a really funny joke could this be? A product?

    But having read this story, I now understand that there are actually people who worked on this Vista thing who believed that they were making a serious software product. The only thing I can think to say is that this is a tremendous shame. I mean, Windows XP can do pretty much anything that a business might need. All they had to do was spend the last five years or so perfecting XP, ironing out all the bugs, cleaning it up as much as they could, optimizing it for better performance, tightening up security, etc. That would have given them a very solid product with which to compete. Instead, they wasted all this effort, time, and money making a product so embarrassingly slow and bloated, even on the newest hardware, that many businesses are avoiding it like the plague. I'm sorry but I really think that Vista is an enormous flop, even if Microsoft is successful in selling millions of copies. The point is that Vista is actually a very good advertisement for Apple Macs with Mac OS X, and for Linux and the *BSDs.

    Their motto used to be "Where do you want to go today?" I don't know about you, but as my sig and journal both say, Microsoft released Vista, so I went to an Apple retail store and bought a Mac.

    Ok. No email about the world's finest software company is complete without a remark that calls for chairs to be thrown... but I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader.

  • by xjimhb ( 234034 ) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @10:16AM (#21397317) Homepage
    Why in hell is this going to be Windows SEVEN?? I can remember Windows 3 (well, 3.1 anyway) and there have been a LOT more than three versions (4, 5, and 6) since then ... 95, 98, 98SE, ME, NT, 2000, XP, and Vista ... seems like this next one should be Windows TWELVE, shouldn't it?

    Oh, well, we know M$ can't write software, I guess they can't count either.
  • Some won't switch90 (Score:5, Informative)

    by regular_gonzalez ( 926606 ) on Sunday November 18, 2007 @11:09AM (#21397625)
    I'll be surprised if the larger companies switch to Vista. A general rule of thumb is that the larger the company, the slower any software transition. Many reasons for this, from testing compatibility of your apps with the new software, to layers of bureaucracy to go through. As an example, General Electric is roughly 60% WinXP and 40% Win2K, at least in Europe -- I can't speak for other territories. Office 2000 is deployed on appoximately 80% of systems, Office XP on another 15%, and only 5% or so having moved to the 'modern' Office 2003 -- this despite known errors in Excel 2000 with workbooks containing lots of pivot tables and formulae running into the 'out of memory' issue. Given that they are the world's second largest company [], and that there's no way they will be upgrading to any new OS without having, say, 3-4 years to test it and get it approved by the powers that be, that's a huge number of sales Microsoft will miss out on. I can only assume that other comperably large companies have similar behavior.

Where it is a duty to worship the sun it is pretty sure to be a crime to examine the laws of heat. -- Christopher Morley