Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Windows Microsoft Operating Systems Software IT

90% of IT Professionals Don't Want Vista 619

A survey by King Research has found that Ninety percent of IT professionals have concerns using Vista, with compatibility, stability and cost being their key reasons. Interestingly, forty four percent of companies surveyed are considering switching to non-Windows operating systems, and nine percent of those have already started moving to their selected alternative. "The concerns about Vista specified by participants were overwhelmingly related to stability. Stability in general was frequently cited, as well as compatibility with the business software that would need to run on Vista," said Diane Hagglund of King Research.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

90% of IT Professionals Don't Want Vista

Comments Filter:
  • by drspliff ( 652992 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:17AM (#21406693)
    Conclusive proof that Vista has flopped :) Unless the survey was rigged, but CmdrTaco wouldn't be that naive would he?...
    • by abigsmurf ( 919188 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:23AM (#21406731)
      Just like XP flopped when people were complaining for ages that thousands of applications wouldn't work on it, very few DOS programs wouldn't work and it seemingly didn't offer enough benefits to counter-act this?

      One thing that always bothers me with surveys like this is the "have you considered moving to linux/apple" type questions. That's an extremely vague question that can get a 'yes' that can have any meaning for "I've heard a few people talk about linux, I should see what it is" to "we have drawn up a feasibilty report and are waiting for a decision from upper management".

      • by purpledinoz ( 573045 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:49AM (#21406943)
        I'm no IT expert, but this is my impression of Vista.
        Vista Pros: DX10 gaming. More secure?
        Vista Cons: Slower, expensive, driver problems, compatibility issues.
        I don't see a reason for businesses to switch to Vista, unless you play games at work. Does anyone see any real benefit for a business user to switch to Vista?
        • by Ajehals ( 947354 ) <a.halsall@pirateparty.org.uk> on Monday November 19, 2007 @11:01AM (#21407125) Homepage Journal
          I have been having this very discussion with trifish as a part of another story.

          Trifish [slashdot.org] would argue that the security benefits alone are sufficient to justify businesses to upgrade. Personally I would say that Vista may be attractive to new businesses* but not ones with an existing investment in XP or 2000, not because the security is lacking, it is an improvement over XP (especially on x64 hardware) but with all the other issues its just not justifiable.

          Vista may become viable as hardware becomes cheaper or if there is a sufficiently large threat to XP that is left unpatched but does not affect Vista.

          * (but they should be looking at the alternatives regardless, see what my company tries to do..)
          • by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) * <.Satanicpuppy. .at. .gmail.com.> on Monday November 19, 2007 @11:15AM (#21407323) Journal
            The problem is, we've all spent too much time securing our Windows networks already...I don't remember the last time I had a virus take down more than a couple of machines, and the last time we had one at all was more than a year ago. Everything is isolated, anti-virused, monitored...All our email is filtered through a third party that strips out anything that looks weird.

            If you're not having security problems, then saying, "This is more secure" doesn't cut any slack, and it sure as hell doesn't make it worth it to switch to a completely new system.
            • by Ajehals ( 947354 ) <a.halsall@pirateparty.org.uk> on Monday November 19, 2007 @12:13PM (#21408185) Homepage Journal
              100% correct (take a look at this [slashdot.org] thread.).

              For the home user Vista has many potential attractions, not least of which is that it will likely arrive on a new PC bought, not because vista is available but because a new computer is required. For business the thought of having to replace a huge number of machines, make changes to various other IT systems, solve any incompatibilities, deal with driver issues, retrain staff and then end up with an IT system that may or may not be more secure than the current one (as you said measures have already been taken) and one that will in all honestly probably deliver little or no productivity benefits, is simply repugnant. This is even more so the case since there are other OS's with similar or better levels of security that run very well on older hardware and are considerably cheaper to acquire and potentially cheaper to maintain, sure they have similar issues with regard to training and compatibility, but if you are throwing out everything else anyway, why not go in favour of something that will at least save you money in terms of licensing and hardware requirements (obviously this aproach is not suitable for all, but then those that is is not suitable for Vista as also not suitable.
              • by Stamen ( 745223 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @12:54PM (#21408825)

                ...but if you are throwing out everything else anyway, why not go in favour of something that will at least save you money in terms of licensing and hardware requirements...
                This is very true, and what I believe will be the long term result of Vista. It's not that it's horrible, it's merely ok, and it causes enterprises to change a lot of their infrastructure. Once you have accepted that your infrastructure will be changing, the cost of switching to an alternative is much easier to swallow. It's a catch 22 for Microsoft, they have to make changes to their OS to compete, but it gives people an excuse to switch. The answer, of course, it to make your new OS so great that when compared to the alternatives, there is no question which one to go with. Vista is only OK, and that isn't good enough.

                As a developer I went through the same thing years ago. I specialized in COM (ActiveX), COM+, and the rest of their DNA stuff (which they had just rolled out); I mainly used Visual C++ and some Visual Basic. Then Microsoft announced .net, and everything that came before was going away; all the stuff, a year ago they were saying was the future. The point of this long story is, I was going to have to relearn everything, and because of that the price to switch platforms was equal to staying with Microsoft. At that time I switched to Java completely. That switch to Java gave me opportunity to switch to unix, which I did. Now I only use Windows when I have to.

                This kind of think, IMHO, is going to happen to the IT people, like it did to so many of us developers back then.
                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by johnw ( 3725 )

                  and everything that came before was going away; all the stuff, a year ago they were saying was the future.
                  I wonder if it's even possible to count how many times Microsoft have iterated through that cycle. I stopped developing on Microsoft platforms about 9 years ago and this is one of the main reasons.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by bl8n8r ( 649187 )
              > I don't remember the last time I had a virus take down more than a couple of machines

              Do you mean the last one you caught was a year ago, or that your metrics date back a year and show remediation and assesment has been effective?

              A lot of the windows exploits have moved* beyond the brain-dead slammer worm that let you know something was hosed. From my experience, many IT shops haven't got the resources, software or experience to stay ahead of the technical level of the malware that is coming down the p
        • by nschubach ( 922175 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @11:03AM (#21407161) Journal

          Vista Pros: DX10 gaming

          If the latest Crysis Demo has anything to say about it, there goes one of your "Pros."

          http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2209704,00.asp [extremetech.com]
        • by Barny ( 103770 ) <bakadamage-slashdot@yahoo.com> on Monday November 19, 2007 @11:06AM (#21407187) Journal
          Cons: memory usage...

          As another news site [theinquirer.net] points out [theinquirer.net] and microsoft themselves agree, Vista, on a per box basis, uses more memory to boot than a supercomputer...

          http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx [microsoft.com]

          http://www.microsoft.com/technet/ccs/sysreqs.mspx [microsoft.com]

          Oh and don't look at the disk space requirements, they are truly frightening :)
        • I don't see a reason for businesses to switch to Vista, unless you play games at work. Does anyone see any real benefit for a business user to switch to Vista?
          If your company develops software for Windows OS that will be made available to the public, you need Windows Vista in order to test your product software for compatibility. If your company publishes reviews of proprietary works such as video games designed for Windows Vista, you need Windows Vista to run these works.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by shinmai ( 632532 )
            In both of your examples, I see no reason for the whole computer infrastructure of the company to get the upgrade. Some testbed-machines should suffice just fine. It's like with web-development (that I'm much more familiar with), I have various different browsers installed on a handfull of machines, but I only use one browser to read slashdot, the others are there just for testing...
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Difference is.... retailers back then didn't had to give a downgrade to xp option (forced in this case) as Vista now. Give me one example where retailers had to give w2k or w98 licenses to people who had computers bought with XP licenses.

        You can stick your head in the sand and refuse to see... but that wont make an ostrich out of you.... just dumber then usual.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Firethorn ( 177587 )
          Actually, some did have to give licenses to 2k over XP, at least until service pack 1 or so.

          Vista is having some of the pains, looks worse right now, but we'll have to wait and see I think to see if Vista turnes into a ME or not.
      • Windows XP/2000 didn't flop because the alternative was much worse (ie. Windows ME).

        Anything was better than trying to make ME work. NT4 wasn't really an option because of missing USB drivers, etc. (Microsoft was deliberately using things like lack of USB to help force the upgrade from NT4 to XP).

        These days the alternative to Vista (ie. sticking with XP) is a better option, and Microsoft has nothing to leverage (DirectX 10 isn't going to force anybody to upgrade...)

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by ZiakII ( 829432 )
          "Anything was better than trying to make ME work. NT4 wasn't really an option because of missing USB drivers, etc. (Microsoft was deliberately using things like lack of USB to help force the upgrade from NT4 to XP)."

          Ha, when I was in the military we used that to screw with the new data guys, we would go and tell them to install that USB printer on that Windows NT machine over there... and then watch about 80% of them try for about 30 minutes to get it to work.
      • by dhavleak ( 912889 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @11:33AM (#21407571)
        Quoting from TFA: [computerworlduk.com]

        Ninety percent of 961 IT professionals surveyed said they have concerns about migrating to Vista and more than half said they have no plans to deploy Vista. (emphasis mine)

        Quoting the headline of the /. post:

        90% of IT Professionals Don't Want Vista (emphasis mine)

        Hardly the same thing. Concern != Don't Want. And you have to be crazy not to be concerned when you deploy a new OS in your enterprise.

        TFA even cites a Forrester Research article to back up it's claim (without linking to it). If you want the actual link, here it is. [forrester.com] That study actually claims that one third of businesses will switch to Vista in 2008, which I think is ridiculously optimistic -- but it just goes to show what these studies are worth.

        Then there's this gem:

        Stability in general was frequently cited, as well as compatibility with the business software that would need to run on Vista
        Let's consider compatibility first. Do these 961 IT Professionals think that switching from XP to OS-X or XP to Linux will give them less compatibility headaches than switching from XP to Vista? On reading this, I can't even understand how CmdrTaco decides that this post is worth our time!!

        And next, let's consider stability. Stability first of all requires a definition -- it's very unclear what stability the 'study' is referring to. I'll assume for a moment we're talking about Vista not crashing. This is a very valid concern -- any time you're doing an enterprise deployment/upgrade. That's why you test your apps on the hardware you purchase. That's why you standardize on the hardware you have validated -- so you know you are buying machines with h/w, with supported drivers, etc. None of this is new to OS deployments/upgrades in general. I'm not sure what other kinds of stability they might be referring to, but it takes on an all-encompassing vagueness in a very FUDlike manner in TFA. I mean, if you're talking about stability from a support perspective, nothing has changed between now and XP. MS is not about to go belly-up anytime soon, so your vendor is not going to sell you an OS and then dissappear into the ether. Maybe stability refers to the disruption caused by transitioning OSes in the very first place. Understandable. That's why businesses aren't using Vista yet. They don't switch to a new OS just because it was released. They had (or at least should have had) very clear requirements, cost-benefi analysis etc. done when they deployed XP. If they did a good job with that deployment, and it is still serving their needs, they have absolutely no reason to switch. Windows XP will go End of Life in 2014 (i.e. MS will support it until 2014). Until then, if their requirements have not changed in a way that necessitates them to switch, they should not switch -- unless there are some other circumstances (like perhaps needing to deploy new h/w and wanting to sync the OS upgrade with that), or perhaps some cost-benefit analysis shows that they can save money by switching to Vista (just tossing that out as an example -- no need to launch an all-out assault on me).
      • by HangingChad ( 677530 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @11:58AM (#21407951) Homepage

        Just like XP flopped when people were complaining for ages that thousands of applications wouldn't work on it

        I was there and this nothing like those days. There is a perfect storm of circumstance conspiring against Vista success. The devaluation of the dollar and crisis in confidence of the valuation of US investment instruments will put many big enterprise upgrades on hold. Based on just the phone calls I get, I see more companies actively seeking alternatives that will run adequately on the commodity hardware they already own.

        MSFT contributed to Vista's problems by delivering late, stripping out the value functionality, jacking the prices and confusing the market with their licensing scheme.

        Business is good for people writing those decision papers right now.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Just like XP flopped when people were complaining for ages that thousands of applications wouldn't work on it, very few DOS programs wouldn't work and it seemingly didn't offer enough benefits to counter-act this?

        That is one complaint. Stability is, however, the major complaint. Second is backwards compatibility. Businesses had choices with XP; some businesses use XP Pro but they had Win2K (released 1 year earlier) as an option. With Vista, there is no other choice but going back to XP (released 5 year

    • Uh...No. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SatanicPuppy ( 611928 ) * <.Satanicpuppy. .at. .gmail.com.> on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:43AM (#21406887) Journal
      I've been working IT for a long time, and I've NEVER liked a new operating system. New == Problems.

      Unless there is a damn compelling reason, I'll stay with what is working and working well until the new thing has been out for a good while...Hell, I know shops that are still migrating to XP and while I think they're behind the times, they're not alone in that.

      If you migrate up just because something new is out...That's just foolish. You're adding a fricking ton to your workload, and for no good reason.
      • Re:Uh...No. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by WPIDalamar ( 122110 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:47AM (#21406929) Homepage
        I think the biggest problem with Vista is there is no compelling reason to upgrade for business users.

        It's prettier. But that's about it.
        • Re:Uh...No. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by peipas ( 809350 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @11:37AM (#21407639)
          I would largely agree, but when studying for the TS in configuring vista, I did find one feature that would be beneficial to businesses: The separate sets of security settings for networking depending on if you are connected to a public or private network. That would be fantastic for better protecting mobile users. Still, that hardly by itself outweighs the cons.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Geste ( 527302 )
        I am not job hunting, but I still get emails and notices from recruiting companies. I don't unsubscribe myself from these notices as I find some of them interesting with respect to the types of projects that are going on.

        Over the past 6 months, I have gotten a couple of emails about a project manager position and another contract position for a 1000+ desktop rollout planned for 2008 at "the world's largest aircraft company". I think I know who they are referring to. In Redmond's back yard.

        The email says
    • Hence the announcement a few days ago that Windows 7 would be "available in 2008" - to stop people from jumping ship.

      (Oh, sure, seven'll be ready in the next six months...!)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by uncoveror ( 570620 )
      I had my Lenovo 3000 N100 which came preloaded with Vista about a week, and it crashed hard. It could not boot up. I thought it would be no big deal. I removed my hard drive, backed it up and reloaded. It was a big deal. Thanks to user account control. I was locked out of all the data I had hoped to save, including my outlook mail and contacts therein. Permanently gone and unrecoverable. The next problem was slowness. This laptop replaced an old HP with an Athlon XP 1500+ with 768MB of SDRAM. In spite of h
  • by Winckle ( 870180 ) <markNO@SPAMwinckle.co.uk> on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:17AM (#21406695) Homepage
    want windows at all?
  • by RendonWI ( 958388 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:20AM (#21406709)
    90% of fish like it better in the water than out.
  • by Corporate Troll ( 537873 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:21AM (#21406711) Homepage Journal

    In the end Vista will be inevitable. Drivers not available anymore except for Vista, important programs that are Vista-only. Security updates not being made available for XP anymore. (Look at how the support for Win2k went downhill once WinXP was released. For NT 4.0, they stopped giving patches before the official end-of-line) Believe me, it will happen, eventually. Give it another year or two. I didn't switch to WinXP before SP2 was very mature (Fall 2005). Before I was Win2k all the way, and before that NT 4.0....

    Try running NT 4.0 these days... Won't get you very far. That's the future of Windows XP. They are going to drop it like a hot potato.

    • by Silver Sloth ( 770927 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:30AM (#21406789)
      I think you're missing the point.

      It may well be wishful thinking amoungst the Linux faithful but there is a growing impatience with the endless Microsoft upgrade cycle. IT professionals are incresingly saying 'Why upgrade? We gain nothing and lose lots.' I have no major issues with XP, it does everything I want it to, but I will have to upgrade because of all the reasons you state.

      So, put yourself in the shoes of a CIO faced with replacing hundreds, or even thousends of PCs because they need to be upgraded to run Vista, and the difficulty of going to the board once again with a request for huge amounts of cash for very little gain, and then maybe Linux starts to look a little better.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Oh, I understood that completely....

        I have worked for banks (actually, I mostly work for banks), and they are notorious for being slow. So, in late 2004, a grand 3 years after the Windows XP release we were using NT 4.0 SP-5 on the desktop. On new Dell machines, nevertheless. While in a banking setup it wasn't important, there were no drivers for the soundcards and I believe the used a Matrox model they installed themselves that was still supported on NT 4.0 or somesuch thing.

        I'm just stating that if

      • by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:57AM (#21407053) Homepage
        It may well be wishful thinking amoungst the Linux faithful but there is a growing impatience with the endless Microsoft upgrade cycle.

        Oh yes, people are equally furious about 1) Microsoft continuously introducing new versions and 2) Microsoft not providing the features they want and need.

        And whats more its the same people and they don't use Windows anyway.

        Vista runs just fine. I have been running it since May and not had any problems apart from a couple that are pretty squarely third party issues. Vista is fast and slick on my hardware.

        Admittedly I would probably not recommend a Vista upgrade but thats mostly because the cost of the Vista upgrade is so close to the cost of a new machine anyway. I have two vista machines and three XP machines in the house. One of those is a three year old Vaio that is dropping to pieces anyway. Another is a Dell box I paid $500 for including the monitor and the other is the machine I use for surfing while I am working out on the treadmill.

        Why pay $160 to upgrade when the machines are 2 years old and I can have a whole new machine thats much faster for $500? I certainly would not consider buying a new XP machine though.

        The industry does not want Vista whine is wishful thinking. Many companies took two years or more to roll out XP. If you have a hundred or so users you would be a fool not to adopt a wait and see approach. But that does not say anything about the quality of the product.

        Vista has higher hardware requirements than past versions. That does not make them unreasonable requirements. But most IT depts want to support a single version of the O/S so that means that they can't do the upgrade till they can afford to end-of-life the legacy machines that don't support the new version.

      • No CIO will ever think that Linux looks like a good idea just because the latest Windows is still in the "unrunnable crap" phase. They don't get where they are by taking big risks, and jumping from windows to linux is enough to make anyone who has any experience break out in a cold sweat.

        A migration from XP to Vista will bring with it a myriad of problems, hosts of issues, hours and hours of work...And that is the tip of the iceberg of what it would take to migrate their userbase from XP to Linux.

        I've been involved in a good half-dozen attempts to move an all windows shop to an all Linux environment, and it always comes down to the same stuff. You may pry them off windows, but you won't pry them off their windows software, so either you have to put your trust in WINE (pause for laughter) or you have to invest heavily in windows terminal services so that you can run all the windows apps they need in a terminal session on their linux machines. Doing that will cause whole new levels of stress on your network, and it also throws up some new point of failure issues.

        On top of all the technical crap, you're going to have massive training issues, and a lot of user resistance from people who want to be able to install stupid little desktop apps. Most of the IT staff won't be happy with you, because generally most of the staff won't be linux guys.

        Even if you get it all running (and every time I've ever done one of these, we got it running, and well), you're still going to get resistance. It stays ugly for long periods of time...I've seen people roll back after two years, writing off a quarter million dollar system as a bad deal.

        Until we get native software, it's going to be the deal-breaker. Selling the terminal services stuff to people doesn't fly all that well.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )
      In the end Vista will be inevitable. Drivers not available anymore except for Vista, important programs that are Vista-only.

      Very, very unlikely. The makers of drivers and"important programs" want to sell their stuff. Why on earth should the target a small market instead of a large one? The only Vista-only software I am aware of today is games paid for by MS to be Vista-only.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        It's already happening with laptops that came preinstalled with Vista. It's very hard or impossible to find drivers to make a working XP install on those.
    • In the end Vista will be inevitable. Drivers not available anymore except for Vista, important programs that are Vista-only. Security updates not being made available for XP anymore. (Look at how the support for Win2k went downhill once WinXP was released. For NT 4.0, they stopped giving patches before the official end-of-line) Believe me, it will happen, eventually. Give it another year or two. I didn't switch to WinXP before SP2 was very mature (Fall 2005). Before I was Win2k all the way, and before that

    • Drivers not available anymore except for Vista, important programs that are Vista-only. Security updates not being made available for XP anymore.

      You know, those are some of the exact reasons Vista hasn't gained the traction in enterprise environments that MS would like:

      * There is hardware out there with drivers not available anymore except for WinXP or earlier, because it is just a bit too old for MS or the vendors to care (in the latter case, it is often the issue of being economically unjustifiable to sup
  • Nothing new. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bruzer ( 191590 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:21AM (#21406715) Homepage
    I read the same kind of article when XP came out. People didn't want to leave 2000 to upgrade to XP, and as we all know that happened.

    Articles like this don't offer too much insight. IT workers are resistant to change... BIG surprise there.
    • Re:Nothing new. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GregPK ( 991973 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:28AM (#21406773)
      Different though, when 2000 came out it was pretty much everything Microsoft claimed and any transition to it was done with minimal compatability issues. Often times more things worked better after the switch. With XP, in the early years anyways there were some compatability issues. But again and overall users were happier in XP. VISTA comes out, users make the switch and the interface confuses everyone, Including the IT pro's. It has driver issues and backwards compatability issues. Even HP's own basic business systems have more compatability Errors with Vista than with XP. In other cases the interface is easier. But, to do anything advanced requires relearning how to a number of menu's. Things take longer...
    • Re:Nothing new. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kevmatic ( 1133523 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:35AM (#21406821)
      Not so much. Remember that many many many companies never did switch over to XP from 2k. 2k, last I checked (about a year ago), was still the most wildly used Windows. People act as though XP has 100% entirely replaced every last 2k or something. It hasn't. Adoption wasn't as fast as MS would have liked, and you can see attempts at keeping MS from repeating XP all through Vista's launch.

      What I don't remember about XP, either, was mass outcry about XP-only machines and vendors offering downgrade options. I don't remember that one bit.

      No, this isn't like the release of XP at all.

      I remember when I had 98 and was more or less forced to upgrade (try running 98 on 2Ghz+ hardware). I was EXTREMELY hesitant to upgrade, I mean, 98 was good, right? Games didn't work right, right? DOS stuff? It took me about 5 minutes to love 2k and I never looked back to 98. Trying out Vista, though, for the first time last week (and on the same machine I had tried to run 98 on years ago), the same thing certainly didn't happen. I was never so happy to reboot back into Gentoo before.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Firethorn ( 177587 )
        Adoption wasn't as fast as MS would have liked, and you can see attempts at keeping MS from repeating XP all through Vista's launch.

        And I think that this is killing them. In attempting to make Vista *NEW* and *REQUIRED* and *DIFFERENT*, they broke a number of things, introduced a bunch of annoyances - killing any desire many people have for upgrading... DRM is only one of the annoyances - why would you set up an OS to work *worse* than its predecessor?

        Sure, it's prettier - but there are still lots of peop
    • Re:Nothing new. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by porcupine8 ( 816071 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:39AM (#21406859) Journal
      Of course, back then, the Apple alternative was a little thing called 10.1 that seemed somewhat interesting, but had yet to be proven (and 10.0 had not exactly been amazing), and most of the apps had to be run in Classic Mode.

      Now, the alternative is an OS that rivals Vista in the amount of hype it's gotten and at a bare minimum at least has support for MS Office and Adobe CS products (and has a couple different ways to run your XP/Vista programs if you really need one or two of them).

      And, of course, Linux has come a long way as well - in 2001 it definitely was not user-friendly enough to be seen as a viable alternative for a lot of companies. Now not only has it improved its interface in a lot of ways, it has a much better software selection - a lot of office drones can get by just fine on OO.o instead of Office, people are using Firefox instead of IE even in windows, etc.

      Everyone keeps saying "the same thing happened with XP" - but it's a different world now than it was when SP came out. No, I don't think Vista is going to be a MS-crushing flop. But when everything shakes out a couple years down the road, I think that the market share figures will definitely look a little different, even if MS still has a majority share.

    • by AB3A ( 192265 )
      I was going to point out the same thing, but for one very critical difference: Back then, most Linux Desktops weren't quite there. It's much closer today.

      Today, we have OpenOffice if you don't like the conventional Office 2007. We have many releases of Linux and even BSD that look pretty nice on a desktop. And if you don't want a bloated OS, you can pare this thing down to however little you can manage with.

      That's huge. No CIO should ignore it this time. They may still head for Vista. But more and mo
    • Look, I dislike MS and its abuse of its OS monopoly, and I've been working hard to expel MS products from my life. I'll be buying a Blackbook on my trip to the US in December, and the machine in my ice cream shop will be running a free (as in speech and as in beer) "commercial automation" package [stoq.com.br] on Ubuntu 7.04. That will be the end of Windows and MS products in my life for the moment, very probably for a long time, and possibly forever. That said, I think the IT professionals polled have a different rea
    • People didn't want to leave 2000 to upgrade to XP, and as we all know that happened.

      I think the difference was most company's still had 98, so they were supporting 2-3 different OS's.

      So you replace your 95/98 desktop machines with XP, because thats what PC's come with. Then once you figured out XP and it became stable you could go to a single operating system for all your windows boxes, including servers.

      Today, most companys are only running XP. So what does Vista offer, as long as a few PC venders still

  • by techpawn ( 969834 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:21AM (#21406721) Journal
    Honestly for me, the number of applications that would just stop working or would need to be coaxed to run on Vista that would make it unstable is far more of an administrative headache than I know I'm willing to deal with at HOME let alone from Joe User who know how to turn a computer on and swears that when an icon is gone the application is missing...
    • by NSIM ( 953498 )

      Honestly for me, the number of applications that would just stop working or would need to be coaxed to run on Vista that would make it unstable is far more of an administrative headache than I know I'm willing to deal with

      And just what those applications be, I can honestly say that I've not had a single application fail to run in Vista, and I have a fairly extensive collection installed.

  • Different things (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Slashidiot ( 1179447 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:22AM (#21406723) Journal
    It's different what IT proffessionals think to what will happen. Who makes choices? The guy with the money, and withouth the knowledge. It's important to see that distinction, as it will take a loooong time to convince the people with the money that microsoft is not the best option. But at least it feels good that almost unanimously the IT people feel Vista is crap.
    • Depends. If you are in a company where the decision makers are clueless, this can happen. Wouldn't want to work there however. Better, sell short.
  • by AbRASiON ( 589899 ) * on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:24AM (#21406737) Journal
    Please, don't mod down, just don't mod up if you don't like re-posts? How's that for a deal.
    Vista's flaw isn't it's lack of a service pack it's the complete lack of THOUGHT in the design of the operating system.
    The user interface is quite simply, messy - it's appalling, frustrating, confusing and slow.

    Re-post below, sorry but damnit if it's not on topic and fitting (mind the language, I was pissed off when I wrote it)
    (I wonder if Microsoft chumps read this site, I can post this all I want but how do I get these darn issues addressed, where do I post this to tell these idiots to wake the hell up?)
    Anyhow, here goes..

    First off, this post and my subsequent replies, my "general whinge with the OS"
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=304745&cid=20695969 [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]

    Then in a little bit more detail
    (crosspost of a post I made on a forum not more than 24 hours ago, I finally documented precisely why Vista Explorer shits me to tears)
    Warning: Bad language ahead.

    Why does Windows Vista insist on a startup sound, despite me disabling all sounds, they are turned off but it does one at startup, I like quiet and what if I don't want to wake people up?

    I've been meaning to make this post for a while, I may have railed on Vista for performance problems, specifically in Crysis, you do need to give a new operating system a 'pass' for a while, let it settle in (it's nearly been a year though!!!)

    My beef still sits with Windows Explorer, something I use daily, a lot at work and home, I need it clean, simple and easy to get data into my face as quick as possible so I can react as quickly as possible (yes, I sorry to big note but I am, *that* quick on the keyboard and when working with files)

    http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/argh01.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com]
    Apply to all folders won't let me save the options for "Computer" (My Computer) or Desktop, this is annoying.
    also, fuck the breadcrumbs bar, in the ASSSSS

    http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/argh02.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com]
    That motherfucker 'task pane' which is taking space up from my damn explorer view.
    Sure, I found some website suggesting I shrink the size of it (yay) but I can still accidentally click the bastard, plus it still looks messy.

    http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/argh03.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com]
    Mofo! I accidentally clicked it, see explanation of why it eats babies in the JPG itself.

    http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/whywhy01.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com]
    Those little box pluses, I like them, why take them away? It's confusing and slowing down the amount of data I can take in per 'scene' I need info and you're witholding it, just so you can pretend you're neater than you actually are.

    http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/whywhy02.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com]
    Ahh my boxes are back, this is good, also more cluttered shit.

    http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/wtf01.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com]
    You call this a save as dialogue box?
    I hit shift tab twice (yes, I do often, try it people) to navigate quickly to where I normally would on XP.
    I slap backspace like 10 times fast, this should ensure I'm at desktop, almost instantly (shift tab x2 and backspace x10 takes me 1 second)
    Does it work? no, of course it doesn't you breadcrumb whores.

    soooo I hit browse

    http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/wtf02.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com] oh oh
    Hot jesus, make the fucking hurting stop!
    This is one of the best reasons WHY I can't deal, look at it
    • I'm with you on all those Explorer issues. Another thing that bugs me is when Vista see a BMP in a folder and thinks 'Gee in amongst these 100 C source files theres a file called companylogo.bmp. Hey, he must be looking at his holiday pictures! I'll helpfully add 'resolution' and 'date picture taken' columns'.
    • by HerbieStone ( 64244 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @01:22PM (#21409259) Homepage
      I once designed GUIs as a professional and found it to be a very difficult job. I too hate Explorer with a passion, though now that I work with Ubuntu at home and at work it has become more and more a memory of the past. But I disgress...

      Designing GUIs is difficult because you don't really know what it should look like until someone else tries to use it. Every person will use your GUI a bit differently and those will want you to adjust your GUI your GUI accordingly (and often be right at that). And (and this is the most problematic part) even persons who don't use your GUI will still have an oppinion how the GUI should look like and work, according their own logic and might demand that you change it (bosses and such). That is why I have huge respects to the guys over at apple. Oh and I don't get me wrong. I don't search any excuses for MS, after so many years they still manage to screw up on the usability side. I just want to give you another perspective as to why such might crap happens at MS. My guess goes towards bad bosses.

      The other thing I wanted to say is, that I think your "DISK1C___GAMES PORN___(E)" is pretty kinky and I bow before you beeing so straight forward and not obfuscating it after taking screenshots of it ;)

  • May be it's just a bad survey. How is it possible that 45% say system management prevent migration when all the platforms have management tools? The complete lack of application compatibility concerns makes me think this survey is bunk.
  • by YeeHaW_Jelte ( 451855 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:25AM (#21406755) Homepage
    Any good IT professional lives by the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' adagium, so what's new?
  • by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:29AM (#21406787) Homepage Journal

    44% are considering moving to another operating system. That's so broad as to be almost useless. "Considering" could mean:

    • We've never even thought about other OSes, and we've just picked up our first copy of LinuxWorld magazine to see what all the fuss is about.
    • We're really annoyed with Vista. We've started paying more attention to those Apple ads.
    • We've started to do some actual cost comparisons between the various options, including Macs, all flavors of Windows, and Linux.
    • We're trying out some Macs on a test basis, and we've installed Linux on an old laptop just to see if it's a viable option.
    • We're in discussions with the folks at Apple Enterprise Sales to see what kind of price they can give us for our exact requirements.
    • by porcupine8 ( 816071 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:49AM (#21406941) Journal
      The article breaks it down a little bit more:

      "Clearly many companies are serious about this alternative, with 9% of those saying they have considered non-Windows operating systems already in the process of switching and a further 25% expecting to switch within the next year," the report "Windows Vista Adoption and Alternatives" reads.

      So about a third of that 44% have at least made it past your first two stages, and some of those are in the final stage.

  • MS blunder (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rice_burners_suck ( 243660 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:35AM (#21406827)

    If you read my journal, you'll see that my latest post is an expansion of my sig. You see, Microsoft's motto used to be "Where do you want to go today?" If that were still the case today, I think it would be a multiple choice question, and the choices would be:

    • Mac OS X (Server or traditional version)
    • Linux (pick your favorite distro)
    • *BSD (pick your favorite distro)
    • Other UNIX system.

    The ironic thing is that all of these alternative OSes are UNIX-based or UNIX-like.

    Back to my sig and journal, I haven't used Windows on my own computers for a number of years now, but I do administer a number of XP machines for my employer. This is soon to change as we are seriously considering a move to the Mac platform for all of this company's computers, and for the two must-have Windows-only applications that we use on only two of our machines, we will install VMware and run XP in a virtual machine. We have been testing this configuration for a number of months now and it is rock solid. Not only that, but these two apps are major engineering applications with four and five digit price tags, and although the versions we use are 7 years old, they do the job we need them to do and no upgrade is necessary, so it will be unnecessary for us to switch to Vista any time soon.

    We did evaluate Vista when it first came out. The evaluation was a short one because we immediately recognized that MS made a big blunder with Vista. To begin with, the installer took forever to load, and then gleefully told us, in shiny letters on a colorful background, how Windows Vista saves you time, as if to say that if the Installer works this slowly, wait 'till you see the operating system! Once the system was up and running, it became quite apparent that it was a joke. We realized that if we were to embrace Vista, it would mean replacing all of our computers, training most of the employees who use them due to the interface's heavy changes, and have many issues with speed, compatibility, and integration. In short, the cost would be horrendous, and at the end of the day, we couldn't find any justification for this expense, even if we tried.

    That is the bottom line. Tremendous cost; no benefit. This is Microsoft's blunder. They simply can't keep forcing upgrades because XP does everything that most businesses need from an operating system, and the course MS should have taken is one of incremental improvements. Had they spent the last five years fixing bugs, cleaning up code, optimizing the bottlenecks of the system, tightening up security, and providing new features slowly and incrementally, they would probably have Windows XP with instant search and a database file system working by now. The only additional misfeature that Vista provides is its incredibly ugly, slow, and resource hogging interface, and we want no part of that. In fact, we run all our XP machines without the Luna interface because we think that's ugly as well.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    And yet, Vista is Microsoft's fastest product launch ever, and easily has exceeded XP's sales at the same point:

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20070517/ai_n19115496 [findarticles.com]

    And MS reported a 27% surge in revenue on strong Vista sales:

    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2207551,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000610 [eweek.com]

    It's really only on Slashdot that it's a failure.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Volante3192 ( 953645 )
      I remember those numbers being posted before about exceeding XP sales.

      If I think back, wasn't that because people were redeeming all their Vista vouchers that they accumulated the past four months from OEM systems? Remember, the whole "Free Vista upgrade!" deal?
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 )
      and easily has exceeded XP's sales at the same point

      Of course more computers get sold nowadays, too. Adjusted figures would make more sense.

  • Macintosh leads the pack of Vista alternatives, with support from 28% of respondents. About a quarter said they would opt for Red Hat Linux, with SUSE Linux and Ubuntu each garnering 18% of the vote. Another 9% cited other Linux operating systems and 4% were unsure.

    28 + 18 + 9 = 55. However, 44% was the claimed number considering alternatives (that 4% doesn't count). Perhaps each was allowed to cite multiple choices?
  • Vista isn't Stable? (Score:5, Informative)

    by JustASlashDotGuy ( 905444 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:45AM (#21406913)
    Has anyone actually had any stability problems with Vista?

    In our testing, Vista has been perfectly stable. Our only complaint is that 3rd party software hasn't been updated to work with it yet (IE: be it applications such as our Audit software, or Web-based SSL VPN from Cisco ).

    Some users bitched about the new GUI, but these are the same users that complained about XP's different start menu and forced 2000-class on everyone for a while.

    We will happily move to Vista once the 3rd party apps work with it. Blaming Vista because 3rd party apps don't work with it makes as about as much sense as blaming Mac or *nix because, CCH didn't write a tax app for them.

    Vista killed a lot of backward compatibility by making things more secure. Although their implementation of this security leaves a lot to be desired (accept/deny). We have no doubt that the 3rd party vendors will eventually update their apps accordingly.

    Stability issue would definitely cause us to push our deployment schedule back, however right now we are only waiting on the vendors to update their software (all hardware works fine so far).

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by dave420 ( 699308 )
      I got a Dell with Vista pre-installed, and I decided to see if I could get along with it. I made sure I had an XP CD lying around to install should Vista not suit my needs. Well, it's a few months later, and I'm still using it. The performance is excellent, all my software works (granted it's pretty much only Adobe CS3, an SSH/FTP client, VPN client, packet sniffers, and games), and I've had no reason to change back to XP. I happen to appreciate the new GUI - it's very smooth, responsive, and coherent.
    • Has anyone actually had any stability problems with Vista?
      Perhaps most telling of all, I haven't even seen it yet.
    • I don't mind that MS has a new operating system. I mind that MS has decided to change how and where everything used to manage the system has been changed. I mind that their "paradigm shift" to tasks rather than actions prevents me from getting to the parts of the OS I need to manage the system. I run a small company and we're all XP (and a 2k3 SBE). I do the IT because I can't really justify 5-10% of my annual operating budget to an IT consultant. I know where things are, and have a good idea of how to keep
  • by o'reor ( 581921 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:46AM (#21406919) Journal
    DO NOT WANT ! [lolcatgenerator.com]
  • by paj1234 ( 234750 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:52AM (#21406987)
    ...I would give the Wine Project (http://www.winehq.org/) all the money they need. Then we could say, "Debian GNU/Linux: Runs Windows applications better than Windows does". My philanthropic contribution to mankind would be better than Bill Gates', because people wouldn't have to die in hospital any more just because the flaky hospital computer crashed again.
  • by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:58AM (#21407063) Homepage
    "Yet heterogeneous systems management could be a barrier to going with a provider other than Microsoft, the survey found. Respondents reported that challenges include the need to manage multiple operating systems (49%) and the need to learn a different set of management tools (50%)."

    Right... exactly the same set of challenges faced by anyone trying to manage more than one version of Windows.

    I've always thought that a good measure of the quality of a software ecosystem is its ability to tolerate version skew between components that would be reasonably expected to be forward-compatible. Conversely, if an ecosystem only works smoothly when everything is at exactly the right version and patch level... particularly when the right version is not the latest version, it's an indication of a combination of poor engineering and poor management.

    It was a revelation to me when, circa 1991, I heard software developers in a Fortune 500 company use the word "port" to describe what they needed to do to transition software from Windows 3.0 to Windows 3.1.

    This sort of situation is tolerated by Microsoft and other large dominant companies (including Apple, these days, within its own fiefdom of dominance) and by their customers, up to a point.

    To some degree it's a win-win scenario. A homogenous environment reduces everyone's support costs, provides a smoother user experience, and allows sloppy engineering to go tolerated and unpunished. It's zero-sum with regard to the cost of keeping the whole company updated, though: that costs the customer and mostly benefits the vendor. Still, a big customer will tolerate that cost, because there's some benefit, in terms of smoother operation. True, better engineering would allow heterogenous versions to interoperate smoothly, so in theory one could have the benefit without the cost, but this is the real world, and many customers may not like the upgrade treadmill but nevertheless see as being the best option.

    But there's a breaking point, and it comes if it is not really practical for the customer to go to a homogeneous system.

    Clearly it's not practical for a big company to go with homogenous Windows Vista yet.

    Microsoft had better have come up with something truly commendable in Vista SP1.
  • by BigCanOfTuna ( 541234 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @10:59AM (#21407087)
    I contract for an organization who's core business is developing software for the stock markets. While we use Linux in our test, staging, and production environments, I am constantly asking myself why the hell I am stuck developing on a laptop with XP? Why the hell am I stuck trying to emulate our Linux environment with Cygwin? Why are we maintaining two sets of scripts to make sure everything works (bash/batch)? Why am I forced to run performance crippling virus software? There are a number of supposed reasons. You've heard them before: "We need Windows for Outlook and Office" - I'm a developer, I need EMail and I hate documentation. Please let me use Firefox and if need be, I'll use OpenOffice. "The learning curve of Linux is too big for some developers" - Fire them, or give them different jobs. Why are you wasting my time, and others who could be more productive because of one or two nine-to-fivers? "Management of Linux would be more difficult for network support" - What you really mean is your support staff has let their skill set elapse and they have focused on Windows technologies. I'm sorry, but fire these people too. Your organization is being held hostage and is losing money by inept people.
  • As of XP, we crossed over as an industry into PC operating systems that have "enough features". Anything that doesn't introduce some mind-blowing new technology (i.e. something as shockingly different as IBM DOS vs. Mac OS circa 1984), will not cause users to upgrade from now on, because the current systems have "enough features".
  • What's to discuss? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by talexb ( 223672 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @11:02AM (#21407133) Homepage Journal
    Feh. Consider:

    1. XP is fine -- a remarkable achievement, actually -- a Microsoft operating system that's finally releatively stable. Well, they've had a few years to get it right. And getting an OS right is really, really tough.

    2. Vista requires top of the line hardware to run decently -- dual core processors and 2G RAM. We had the exact same discussion over ten years ago when Windows 95 came out -- Microsoft swore it would run fine in 4M memory, and it never did -- 8M was better, and 12M was decent.

    3. Vista is still not stable -- it is, after all, a 1.0 release. Geeks consider anything 1.0 from Microsoft a bit dodgy.

    4. All current applications run fine on Windows XP, but may or may not run under Vista. No surprise there.

    5. A recent article said that XP was still outselling Vista three to one on new system installs. It's not a tough choice: do you want the stable option that runs more quickly and is more compatible, or would you prefer the unstable option that runs more slowly and is less compatible? Hmmm. But the new one has such pretty pictures! Shiny! Shiny!

    Sorry. Got carried away for a moment there.

    I think Microsoft's suits need to just suck it up and keep selling Vista quietly, and give the engineers time to get the code right. The hardware will catch up to Vista, and the engineers will get the bugs sorted out. In a couple of years XP will be old hat.

    I just wish they'd been able to get more of the cool stuff like WinFS into the latest version of Windows. It seems that this version is just new wrinkles in the sheet metal, and nothing much else. Sigh.
  • by GomezAdams ( 679726 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @11:05AM (#21407177)
    Buying Microsoft products is like having an ex-wife you are obligated to pay all expenses for. When she gets a new dress you have to buy her a new house and abandon the old one. Then the new dress needs all new accessories and even unrelated kitchen appliances and a car.

    But then buying Apple products is the same except it starts with a new house and works it's way back to the dress, car, and kitchen appliances which can only come from the same company that built the house.

    I am constantly amazed with the people who flock to Apple when they do the same thing at the hardware level that Microsoft does at the software level and that is product line lock in.

    The only free choice comes when you use commodity hardware with a Linux or Free/Open/Net BSD OS. Having a geek staff to build and maintain these are no more expensive than buying into the 'Who you gonna sue when it goes bad' thinking so it has to be corporate buys only. When is the last time anyone sued Microsoft successfully for causing millions of dollars in lost revenue and productivity due to security flaws and buggy productivity tools?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      I am constantly amazed with the people who flock to Apple when they do the same thing at the hardware level that Microsoft does at the software level and that is product line lock in.

      Apple does tie their hardware and OS and it is a huge drawback to using their products. Of course if they didn't do it, they'd go out of business because they'd be directly competing with MS in the OS space, which given MS's ability to illegally leverage their monopoly is a losing proposition, regardless of the relative quality of the products. That said, aside from that one tie in, Apple doesn't do a lot to tie other products to their OS or computers. They work with standard compliant devices, connectors

  • by Bilby Baggins ( 1107981 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @11:10AM (#21407251)
    Basically from Vista's release announcement I've been saying that it hasn't had enough time in dev, it was released too early, and that Microsoft didn't get around to doing any of the things that they said they would do with Vista- basically, that Vista is to XP what Millennium Edition was to 98SE- a backslide. I tried to get one Vista laptop to connect to our campus wifi with no luck, and basically had a hell of a time navigating the few Vista systems that came around.

    When it came time for me to get a new laptop, I desperately wanted to get one with XP, an operating system that has mostly had the major issues worked out of it, and that I knew well inside and out. But my business partner made the good point that, as IT Consultants, we were going to have to support it, so we should know it, whither or not we really like it. And (of course) the best way to get to know an OS is to live with it.

    So I've been running Vista for about a week so far, with heavy use both plugged in and on battery, and I have to say this (in bold in italics so you get the idea of how surprising this was to me... ) I'm pretty impressed with Vista. YES, I know i has problems, some of which are VERY aggrivating. It shows as using a lot of ram, and it does tend to bother one overly much while installing software and doing other system tasks. BUT- for the avarage user, these warnings will help to make it harder for malware vendors to install their junk software, for even if the spyware/adware uses an IE exploit to enter the system, if they are trying to hide behind the vague shell of being valid software their install will cause a warning to pop up for the user. While this doesn't stop a user for still allowing it, it DOES make them aware of the problem- an improvement. to be sure.

    I also have noted that yes, Vista DOES look a lot like Windows XP professional in drag. The menus are confusing... but only for someone used to 98/2k/XP. Oh, and you can make Vista behave and look quite a bit like XP, as well. Personally I've left the pretty stuff on- it's not too bad looking, and hell, if Apple can get away with a pretty UI, why not Microsoft?

    Vista has it's share of problems, but overall I'd say that it will be an improvement over XP- once some of the worst issues are taken care of.

    Personally, I've not had any software compatibility issues yet, and have installed old versions of Winamp, CDex, and even Total Annhiliation on the system with nary an issue.

    I'm NOT saying that it's perfect, nor that it's ready for a large-scale enterprise roll-out. Realistically speaking, XP is a better platform anyhow- hell, most corporate networks could still be using terminals for much of their work! But it's a step in the right direction for Microsoft.

    Please note that not only did I post this from my work OSx machine, I'm also in charge of maintaining 200+ desktops with OSs ranging from Win98SE to OS9 and a couple variants of linux. So i'm not a total OS/UI noob ;)
  • by ledow ( 319597 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @11:19AM (#21407371) Homepage
    The last school I worked at, we got a free volume license for XP or Vista Business (we could use either at any time and chop/change whenever we wanted without having to do anything - the school's licenses worked out that way), we had Vista Business media sent to us as part of our usual arrangements, we were Windows-only, we were revamping the network and basically would have started things from scratch (other problems got in the way but we were planning to take down and re-do the network from scratch over the summer).

    We chose XP. It didn't even take a second's thought - we all just mutually agreed Vista wouldn't be worth the effort. We did do a small viability test to see what we'd been given for free and put it on a high-end machine etc. to test it. We couldn't find a single compelling reason to use it over XP and yet we found lots of reasons against - starting with "we don't know what it'll do, whether it'll run everything we need or what problems it will cause us - even after testing it" and going through to "it slows the machines down".

    There was literally nothing. We had a network running only a handful of servers, transition would have been effortless because this was before we'd started imaging the machines for the next term and we just all agreed not to. T'aint broke, don't fix it. XP t'aint broke - and the parts that ARE broke weren't fixed in Vista. SP3 is around the corner. SP2 is good enough for our purposes. Vista didn't solve any problems that we had but would have introduced whole new problems that we wouldn't have had - starting with user-retraining - even in Classic settings, it works differently.

    Our servers were mainly managed by batch scripts (yes, not even VB scripts) and a common piece of school computer management software. We didn't even bother to look up if they would work with Vista - the OS just didn't even get that far in our estimations. Plus, on the "non-kids" part of the school, we had just plain AD and logon script management. We could easily do Vista on one side, XP on another as they are physically seperate and don't need to be compatible. We didn't bother.

    Where were the advantages? Any established network already has stuff in place which makes that all the stuff that Vista touts as features useless - they are all either permanently turned off or people use a better non-Microsoft replacment. For example, we turned all our XP machines to "classic" settings because it meant that we could keep another two "generations" (i.e. a full annual/termly purchase) of computers running at the same settings as the rest of the network at a reasonable pace. Without "classic" we would have had to upgrade or scrap two generations of machines because they wouldn't have been usable. With Vista, we were looking at moving on an extra two generations of PC's minimum - it was too expensive, even in "classic" mode. And to run it "as intended", we were looking closer to four generations.

    There wasn't anything new to manage. Vista behaved the same under the management of a Server 2003 server as XP did. It was, to all intents and purposes, a heavier XP. There wasn't anything for the users, especially not after you bring it in line with XP-era performance. Maybe they could have used a handful of features at home but in a business you didn't want half of what it was trying to do.

    Maybe if they'd released the next Windows Server at the same time - so that they worked and could be purchased, spec'ced, learned, managed and upgraded in tandem - it would be more of an enticement. As it is it's just a slow XP. With less drivers. And more nuisances.

    When people that get Vista licenses literally FOR FREE with the way they purchase licenses and months later they still haven't done more than "curiosity" testing and still don't use your product, you have a problem. We don't get any expressions of surprise or attempts to push Vista when we order PC's in bulk and categorically specify "XP Pro pre-installed, drivers & licenses please, no Vista" on the
  • by Aslan72 ( 647654 ) <psjuvin AT ilstu DOT edu> on Monday November 19, 2007 @11:47AM (#21407791)
    We're in a world where Open Source has created compatability and the goal is brining everyone in under the same roof. Leopard, Ubuntu, SUSE and their ilk have created experiences that are comparable to Windows and, in some cases, even better. The onus is now on MS to keep up. If we're waiting on SP1 for this OS to be stable (which we are) I would have rather they waited a year and released a better product. There was a ars technica article where they interviewed the manager for Vista some time ago and everyone at MS was praising him because he was marshalling people and ditching features in Vista in order to get it out the door. I'm horribly dissapointed in what came out. There were features that I, for one, was looking forward to and would have given Vista's poor security implementation a whole lot more grace in my eyes had they included them. --pete
  • My Reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tarlus ( 1000874 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @12:25PM (#21408369)
    As a sysadmin, I would fall in that 90%.

    I'm not so much concerned about incompatibility, instability or user-unfriendliness.

    The license would be expensive and I'd have to upgrade 100 machines which are all comfortably running XP. XP works for everybody. Nobody has any applications which require Vista. So there's really no motivation to buy it.

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Sadly, once security updates cease, a lot of those people in that 90% will have no choice but to reconsider the switch.
  • by AncientPC ( 951874 ) on Monday November 19, 2007 @01:56PM (#21409813)
    I came across a few PC vs. Mac ads bashing Vista's low adoption rate and people were downgrading to WinXP. I guess Vista complainers is no longer geek-only, but rather mainstream now since Apple's advertising it?

Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?