Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

If Windows 7 Fails, Citrix (Not Linux) Wins

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the expedient dept.

Windows 638

Julie188 writes "Microsoft blogger Mitchell Ashley, who has been using Windows 7 full-time, predicts that Windows 7 will fail to lure XP users away from their beloved, aging operating system — after all, Windows 7 is little more than what Vista should have been, when it shipped two years ago. But eventually old PCs must be replaced and then we'll see corporations, desperate to get out of the expense of managing Windows machines, get wise. Instead of buying new Windows 7 PCs, they could deliver virtualized XP desktops to a worker's own PC and/or mobile device. Ashley believes that Citrix's Project Independence has the right idea."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

2009 is the year of ... (5, Funny)

Tamran (1424955) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667161)

... the Citrix desktop!

Re:2009 is the year of ... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667549)

Pffft. That's what they said in 2008, and in 2007, and in 2006, etc.

Re:2009 is the year of ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667625)


Re:2009 is the year of ... (4, Funny)

robot_love (1089921) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667669)


Re:2009 is the year of ... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667713)

There's an awful lot of low-flying birds around here.

GNAA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667163)

Are you gay? Are you a nigger? If you answered "yes" to both of these questions, then GNAA might be exactly what you're looking for!

Why not linux wins then? (5, Interesting)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667185)

If all I need is a netbook running linux (cheaper), or a newer computer, again, with linux, in order to hit the citrix backend, isn't this a net win for linux?

Because Citrix on Linux slows you down (4, Informative)

Benanov (583592) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667223)

In my experience Citrix has some serious out-of-band issues with modifier keys on Linux and Mac OS X. Shift key events don't send correctly.

I type so fast that I mean "Citrix" and I get "cItrix"

I've tested this on Ubuntu 7.10, 8.04, and 8.10, and my friends report issues on Mac OS X.

Re:Because Citrix on Linux slows you down (3, Insightful)

dzelenka (630044) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667467)

In my experience Citrix has some serious out-of-band issues with modifier keys on Linux and Mac OS X. Shift key events don't send correctly.

C'mon, that is a problem that could be solved in an afternoon! It could be solved at the citrix client level or at the linux host level.

If project independence takes off and businesses don't need a windows license on each workstation to make it work then look out. This obstacle will stand like a sandcastle in a rising tide.

Re:Because Citrix on Linux slows you down (3, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667491)

It even happens on windows if you are passing through to another ICA/RDP session. I've had significantly better luck with the new 11 client, is that available for Linux yet?

No. (2, Informative)

Benanov (583592) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667615)

Nope, only 10.6.

Re:Because Citrix on Linux slows you down (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667577)

I type so fast that I mean "Citrix" and I get "cItrix"

All I've gotta do is type fast to get clit tricks? I've been paying real money all this time!

NX (5, Interesting)

TypoNAM (695420) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667617)

No Machine [] so far has been a great alternative for VNC and the like to work with remote Linux desktops and even virtually. I've tried both their free NX server edition and the FreeNX [] server. FreeNX still needs some love/work in making it easier to get up and going, especially on Debian. The free NX server edition works better than FreeNX because I've been experiencing refresh/display corruption over time using FreeNX and not with the retail/free NX server using the same NX client (of which is always free, currently anyway) on Windows and Linux desktops.

I especially liked how extremely well NX works with slow connections, not necessarily slow on the client side, but with extremely pitiful 128kbps upload speeds from the server such as my home DSL connection when I'm away. I use to prefer VNC until I found out about NX of which is just more enhancements to the X11 protocol over SSH as far as I can tell (I'm definitely no expert as to what all goes in behind the scene). It Just Works(TM). :)

Re:NX (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667941)

I would second the greatness that is NX. I, unlike you, have found it extremely simple to setup, though I use CentOS and RHEL 5. It's as simple as 'yum install nx freenx' and you're done. I've had no display issues (or any issues for that matter) using FreeNX as opposed to the commercial version. Nothing but positive experiences.

Re:Why not linux wins then? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667529)

Really? People using Linux in order to use Citrix in order to use Windows... is a win for Linux?

The Citrix people will get their money, which is what they want. What will the Linux people get in this scenario? A larger install base? Of users that don't actually use the OS except as a stepping stone to their actual OS?

Re:Why not linux wins then? (5, Insightful)

digitalgiblet (530309) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667689)

Linux also has a PR problem. The average person (if they have heard of Linux at all, and most haven't) tend to think of it as something for anti-social geeks who will be mean to them if they ask for help.

I'm not saying that is the truth of the matter, just the common perception I have seen.

They also perceive Mac as being the easy and cool computer, but perhaps too expensive or trendy for them. Or simply not the computer they currently have.

That leaves XP. It is already installed on their computer. Installing a new operating system is not something they want to do any more than they want to install all new toilets. They'll do it if they have to, but are pretty sure they'll screw things up with disastrous results.

The average person isn't a programmer and doesn't want to be. The concept of open source and free software means nothing to them except free as in beer. They like free beer. But they aren't willing to set up a brewery to get free beer. They don't want to learn the details of brewing. They just want to get drunk...

There is nothing technically that prevents Linux from going mainstream. The Linux kernel (and that is all that is actually Linux) works and works great. The software that sits on top of it is of mixed quality. Some is great, some sucks. Same is true of Windows and Mac, right?

So why don't those suffering XP users switch to Linux? Because they aren't suffering enough to take action. They give lots of reasons why they won't switch to Vista, but at the end of the day most don't largely for the same reason they don't switch to Linux: XP works well enough that they aren't willing to do what they consider the difficult and annoying work of installing a new OS.

The same arguments apply to the digital TV transition. Some people simply don't believe they should have to buy a new TV or a converter box (or subscribe to cable or satellite) when the hardware they have is not broken.

For the record, I believe that on older hardware (the kind my hypothetical person has), installing something like Ubuntu is likely to be much easier and more successful than Vista. But neither is as easy as keeping the current, spyware infested XP. Easiest wins.

That was far more than I intended to post so I will stop now. Wait. Now. Doh!

Re:Why not linux wins then? (1)

bev_tech_rob (313485) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667777)

Where's my mod points when I need them? Very insightful post.

Re:Why not linux wins then? (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667869)

The concept of open source and free software means nothing to them except free as in beer. They like free beer. But they aren't willing to set up a brewery to get free beer. They don't want to learn the details of brewing. They just want to get drunk...

...and drive.

I'd rather... (0)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667197)

I'd rather see Sun Ray win...

Re:I'd rather... (1)

mancunian_nick (986362) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667257)

Is he any relation to Sugar by any chance? :) Anyway I was going to say I like XP. It works and does what I want and need it to do on my non-networked system at home. If I later get myself another PC and want to network them, I'll update to XP Pro. I personally wouldn't use Vista if someone paid me to use it - some of the horror stories I've heard - although they may have since been fixed since it was released perhaps. And using the old computer adage if it ain't broke don't fix it, I think Win7 can wait ... and wait and ...

Windows 7 or 8 or whatever will not fail (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667205)

People will leave XP for whatever the next MS milestone is.

They are not going Mac or Linux. The apps are not there.

This slashdot editorial stance is making you guys look like the fox news of the open source movement.

Re:Windows 7 or 8 or whatever will not fail (3, Interesting)

Enry (630) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667293)

Leaving your snark aside, if your point was true then we'd see a mass migration to Vista. It isn't happening, and so the future of Windows 7 remains in doubt.

Re:Windows 7 or 8 or whatever will not fail (5, Informative)

pla (258480) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667359)

People will leave XP for whatever the next MS milestone is.

That'd mean "Vista", which people resisted as well as they knew how.

For some people it means just not upgrading their machines, for some it means taking advantage of the Vista-to-XP downgrade licensing, for some it means just pirating XP to install on their new machines.

But no, Vista nicely demonstrated that people will not put up with whatever MS throws at them, as long as what they already have works well enough for their needs.

Funny, I thought ME already showed that (2, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667587)

Lets face it ME showed that already and what exactly ever happened to windows 1 2 and 3 (remember, the windows 3 we know and ***** is actually 3.11 (or something like that)).

Re:Funny, I thought ME already showed that (1)

uglyduckling (103926) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667937)

Plenty of people used Windows 3. Windows 3.11 was a widely accepted upgrade because it had much better networking support.

Earlier versions of Windows tended, in my experience, to be used mostly in run-time mode, packages like Aldus Pagemaker included a runtime Windows because the GUI library provided was ideal for DTP on PCs.

Re:Windows 7 or 8 or whatever will not fail (1)

atari2600 (545988) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667805)

The most important part of your post: as long as what they already have works well enough for their needs..

I work with Linux boxes all day and my personal laptop runs Linux only but I do have a gaming machine that runs XP so I can play some of the latest PC games. I do however need to upgrade the machine and after bad-mouthing Vista for 2 years, I am finally going to install Vista Ultimate on a pretty beefy machine this weekend.

I want to wait for Windows 7 but I want something now - DX10 support more specifically and support for 4-8GB of RAM and neither XP (screw the 64bit XP) nor Linux can help me there. I have a need that only Vista can address (as fucked up as it sounds).

The funny thing though is the hardware is pretty much as new as Jan.2009 (PhenomX4, GTX280 and oodles of 1066MHz RAM) and that should be sufficient to run Vista well while Microsoft claimed back in 2005 that all 2005 hardware should be able to run Vista "well".

Re:Windows 7 or 8 or whatever will not fail (3, Informative)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 5 years ago | (#26668007)

We're telling our customers (large corp. with site wide XP license) to pickup new machines in the next few months, so we can image them with XP. Word's come down that come June, our license terms with MS change and we won't be able to 'downgrade' vista machines after that.

Re:Windows 7 or 8 or whatever will not fail (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667365)

That depends what they use. My wife now uses OpenOffice and Firefox (unfortunately I've not convinced her to move to Thunderbird yet) so her apps are still there if she wants to move to Linux or Mac. Ditto at work - we use Firefox, Thunderbird, IM client of our choice and Eclipse, plus OpenOffice for almost all documents (all internal and most external) so we're quite happy on Linux with all the apps we need.

Re:Windows 7 or 8 or whatever will not fail (5, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667475)

People will leave XP for whatever the next MS milestone is.

People will leave XP for whatever the next MS millstone is.

There. Fixed that for ya.

Re:Windows 7 or 8 or whatever will not fail (0, Flamebait)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667553)

pull your head out of the sand (or your ass) as other replies state Vista did not take like you say the next ms OS would/should, same with win7, people are tired of microsoft's gimmicks and want something solid, Linux can deliver this, i have not used Citrix so i can not say either way about it, 10/4 that's a roger, over & out...

Re:Windows 7 or 8 or whatever will not fail (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667721)

There's a Microsoft troll in our midst.

XP was solid, if you mean they had to coat it with the titanium of XP SP2+. Then there was the deliciousness of Vista, an enormous debacle- even for Microsoft. Now the spin is "Oh, Windows 7, so sexy and fixed!".

This while netbooks arrive with a diversity of operating systems, Macs take the only burgeoning segment in computing-- laptops to the bank, and Windows Mobile can't get out of the ditch, let alone compete with the ugliness of Android, the closed architectures of the iPhone, and so on.

I wonder if and how some people get paid to make such delightful astroturfing trolling statements. Maybe there's a job for them at Amazon.

Re:Windows 7 or 8 or whatever will not fail (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667735)

It was my understanding that vista is a pretty good OS now a days but still reeling from all that crap that happened at launch.

Since 7 for 99% of users will not have the vista release problems it should do very well. MS learned a lot from the vista release and its starting to show.

Re:Windows 7 or 8 or whatever will not fail (1)

samkass (174571) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667967)

People will leave XP for whatever the next MS milestone is.

Maybe. I've used the Windows 7 Beta quite a bit, and I like XP way, way better. Windows 7 feels like a mish-mash of web-like interfaces loosely bound together by some eye-candy.

I think gamers will move to Windows 7 in droves. Home users who get it on their machines will dislike it but won't switch away from it. Business users will be forced to let go of XP by prying it out of their clenched fists with a crowbar.

Some salt... (3, Insightful)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667217)

for when hell freezes over.

Although if Microsoft had an option in 7 to "make it look like XP" it would be a good thing.

Re:Some salt... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667679)

Windows Vista Has This, So why would that make a differance?!?!? Vista got it all wrong, not just looks and its the looks they are keeping!?!? at least the driver model is going to be stable now (or from tests it is!).

Re:Some salt... (2, Insightful)

GordonCopestake (941689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667855)

It's called "Windows Classic theme" and has been around for a while. You can even make XP look like Win95 if you want. MS isn't stupid they know people cling on to what they know like grim death.

Make an identical-to-XP GUI mode, it will succeed (1)

swb (14022) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667871)

IMHO, if you make it capable of looking like XP -- *identical*, don't force any of the our-designers-and-experts-say-this-is-better-for-you new GUI on people -- then it will succeed. Most people don't know or care a whole lot about new internals, they just don't want to go through hell for a week/month/whatever re-learning how to do stuff they already know how to do. Or, more appropriately, how to work around idiocies forced on them by "experts" who know better.

I was pretty stunned when Win 7 beta looked and smelled just like Vista, despite whatever under the hood changes were made, and it couldn't be made to work like XP from a GUI perspective.

Instead, MS will not supply an XP GUI for Win 7, will cut everyone off in the harshest manner from XP, and wonder why people remain pissed and them and suspect the motivation is just to sell more shit.

Citrix.. the insanely expensive? (5, Interesting)

guruevi (827432) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667219)

Really, Citrix? If anyone ever asks me about it again I will go postal. Are you seriously saying you need 4 beefy servers to run 50 users' Outlook and Internet Explorer and then still have it go dog slow.

Citrix has some good ideas and technology. The implementation however is usually very bad. It's the Peoplesoft of virtualization.

Re:Citrix.. the insanely expensive? (5, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667605)

You're doing it wrong, we support ~30 users per server and they are mostly 4 core boxes with 4GB of ram, not exactly beefy servers by today's standards. We'd easily be doing 4x that if we could go to x64 with 16GB per box but IE has this bad habit of loading the 64bit executable even when you explicitly launch it from the x86 directory causing all 32bit plugins and ActiveX controls to not work.

Re:Citrix.. the insanely expensive? (2, Funny)

CaptainJeff (731782) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667637)

Citrix has some good ideas and technology. The implementation however is usually very bad. It's the Peoplesoft of virtualization.

This is, without a doubt, the most true statement I have ever read on Slashdot.

Re:Citrix.. the insanely expensive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667731)

I'm with guruevi, far too expensive, far too resource intensive.

And another thing, Windows 7 IS NOT that revolutionary. You can still use a mouse and keyboard. Normal users will be able to figure out how to use browser, Office 07, etc. And I'm going to guess most companies use a custom/off-the-shelf/web-based app for their day to day work. As long as a user can open their app or email or excel there won't be a problem.

Windows 8 on the other hand....

Re:Citrix.. the insanely expensive? (3, Informative)

nolife (233813) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667955)

Not specifically a reply to you but..

They are not talking about Citrix servers and running remote apps in the traditional Citrix sense. They are referring to Citrix virtual desktops. They keep changing the name but I believe it is called the "Independence Project" now.

It allows you to have just about any workstation either local or remote and you will connect to your "virtual desktop" and do all of your work. An example is a thin client at your desk with a bare image of Windows. It can automatically launch your businesses virtual desktop on start up. That same virtual desktop you have can be accessed from ANY thin client, laptop, over the internet etc.. No more "desktop" management per say because the user can basically plug in a bare bones pre installed something from Dell and with a single application, can access their "normal" desktop.
On the back end, there are many advantages as well. The virtual desktops can use shared storage, they can be templates allowing you to distribute hundreds of virtual desktops with a small back end amount of disk space (changed from the template are saved in your desktop etc). These virtual desktops can be checked out and on a timed basis as well and and be configured to limit what access the local hardware has so you can limit usb sticks copying crap off etc. You can give an employee a laptop with a copy of the virtual desktop limited to 30 days use. If they take off, the virtual desktop with all of the company data can not be accessed after 30 days. Just an example.

Applications are updated and pushed to the templates as a group instead of to each physical desktop so that is easier as well.

VMWare has the same thing, it is called VDI. I've tested them both. I like the VMWare solution better myself but both companies are adding features and functionality every week.

I probably have one big run on sentence above and did a crappy job explaining it but. Read and decide for yourself, it is a decent technology that has a lot of good use.

Actually (2, Insightful)

alexborges (313924) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667261)

He makes a great point. However, i wouldnt diss linux in that play. Its not stoping either, citrix is not exactly cheap and XP will still be for pay/per head.

This are good times for linux anyhow.

Re:Actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667821)

Actually... At some point, MS won't allow you to pay per head and will have to upgrade to the next millstone they provide.

Citrix is a win? I honestly want to know what it takes to get a job as a pundit. That way I can pull things like this out of my backside and get paid for it too.

WHixch is why MS needs (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667271)

to sell the 'ultimate' version only, and for 50 bucks to people who need to upgrade a current system.
It needs to be ab;eto run on those machines.

It also needs be 64 bit with a nice emulator to run legacy apps.

Ironically, MS brought this problem on themselves with Access.

VMWare, VirtualBox, Parallels, etc... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667311)

How is this a 'win' for Citrix? Every time I've used it it's been buggy (From OS X Client) and slow (over normal Cable). A local virtual machine beats this hands down. In 5 years I will be able to run XP just fine on my 64bit, 5Ghz octo-core, 16GB of ram and have VMWare make a nice 32bit, 3GB of ram, dual processor for XP.

Re:VMWare, VirtualBox, Parallels, etc... (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667585)

only if you use XP 64, which is a wobbly turd. XP 32 won't recognise all your RAM...
alot of people are waiting for the first proper - stable out of the box - 64-bit Windows (of which XP was naff, and Vista 64 had alot of driver issues out of the box but are mostly fixed with patches) and Windows 7 is shaping up to be that.

Re:VMWare, VirtualBox, Parallels, etc... (1)

Tweenk (1274968) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667719)

You fail at reading comprehension, from GP:

have VMWare make a nice 32bit, 3GB of ram, dual processor for XP

He'll only allocate 3GB of RAM and 2 cores for use in the XP virtual machine.

Re:VMWare, VirtualBox, Parallels, etc... (1)

Albanach (527650) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667745)

I think you missed the part about vmware. I don't think they were suggesting XP as the host OS, rather that with whatever host OS they choose, vmware can provide what would be a nice and fast environment for XP.

Re:VMWare, VirtualBox, Parallels, etc... (1)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667813)

You must have missed the part about VMWare. He was implying running XP(32) on a virtual machine (simulating a 32bit proc with 3gb ram, well under the threshold for XP) on his Core 8 Octa proc with enough ram to run many such instances.

I assume there would be a VMWare instance running some linux distro and of course OSXVIII (which could finally be purchased for any computer).

Re:VMWare, VirtualBox, Parallels, etc... (1)

dubbreak (623656) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667867)

Oh, but no BSD instance. BSD finally died. Sure it said it was feeling fine and claimed, "I think I'll go for a walk... I'm happy I'm happy." But it was dead. Though, since netcraft was also dead no one was able to confirm the death.

No Citrix does not win (5, Insightful)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667315)

That's just propoganda nonsense. If the scenario actually holds true, then Virtual Engineering wins. This means VMWare's enterprise desktop virtualization, and possibly Citrix might get a piece. This is just a little Citrix plug. Wouldn't quite call it news.

Office for Linux and OSX (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667321)

When XP has totally rotten away we will finally see Office for OSX and Linux. Yes I know Office for OSX exists but it isn't even very compatible with Office for Windows so it doesn't count yet.

Re:Office for Linux and OSX (1)

YetAnotherProgrammer (1075287) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667911)

The shift of demographics may not be on the side of office. More and more computer users are becoming more open to alternatives. I think we are close to having a good alternative for average users when it comes to an Office type suite. On the other hand we are a bit off when it comes to the complexity of some business users. Now if you add in security concerns and the no internet connection no production problem, it becomes hard for a business to switch to that environment. The better choice for a business is a self hosted web based solution. That will eliminate OS dependence for most companies as long as the browser technology is there.

Those days are gone (5, Interesting)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667339)

The days where people just queued for hours to get the latest OS/game/etc... are almost gone. Most people have left behind that romanticized period (thanks god). I use Vista on my new machines. In my old one I'm perfectly happy with XP. I like Vista a lot, but XP is very good as well....

Hell I'm still using Mandriva 7 on my laptop and I'm still perfectly happy with it. I am not upgrading it to the last one or tu Ubuntu (insert the latest stupid name here). My Mac is running Tiger. Don't need Leopard or some stupid shining Time machine, thank you very much.

Re:Those days are gone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667571)

Wow, do you have some anger issues?

Re:Those days are gone (1)

kjart (941720) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667919)

The days where people just queued for hours to get the latest OS/game/etc... are almost gone.

I'm not sure what you're smoking, but a few counterexamples off the top of my head:

A) Any new Apple OS/product
B) The last World of Warcraft expansion
C) Harry Potter books

If anything, A seems to be getting more pronounced.

VMware (1)

MacColossus (932054) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667345)

I wonder if VMware View will fare better than Citrix. [] A lot more companies have VMware and VMware experience than Citrix. Ultimately I think in higher ed we will see Linux and Mac numbers increase. Especially in general purpose labs.

Re:VMware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667565)

It would be neat if you could create a Mac VM... =)

Then I could see more wide-spread adoption.

VMWare vdi / vdm ftw.. (4, Interesting)

GuyverDH (232921) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667355)

I'm currently working with vdm and Sun's SunRay Server software...

It's very nice, and since the virtual desktop machines sit on the ESX cluster, hardware upgrades are too damned easy...

Install the new hardware, load esx, add to the cluster and migrate running VMs as needed (or watch them migrate automatically if any of the old cluster members are overloaded)...

All I know.... (2, Interesting)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667369) that this summer when I plan on purchasing a new PC, I better have the option of having XP as the only OS on the computer. No dual boot XP/Vista, no Windows 7, just XP.

Re:All I know.... (2, Insightful)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667781)

That is easy, buy an OEM XP online and built the PC yourself. Places like newegg sell the hardware and software. I would still shop around and get the best deal you can find for both hardware and software. If XP is what you want, shop around for the best deal for it.

Unless you wanna go pirate or you can get the people on microsoft's phone line to grant you a new XP code. I know a lot of people who do that. They claim that their machine died (electrical short/flood/something believable) and they had to replace the machine. Might take some time but it often works.

ON topic: isn't citrix still a pain to setup with all of ones apps? And you still need the licensing for XP clients (plus app licensing).

Re:All I know.... (2, Insightful)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667809)

Or else what?

Wait happened to "hosted apps are bad". (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667373)

Wasn't the general concensus yesterday that "cloud" computing and web apps were too slow and too server intensive?

I don't see how offloading all the processing to giant centralized servers is cheaper and more efficient than giving everybody an inexpensive computer that can actaully run the applications needed.

"Never complain about slowness again." Yeah I'm sure running XP over the internet or intranet is going to be lightning fast, there'll be no backwards compatibility issues and everything will be glorious. More likely it'll be worse than runing Vista.

I remember back in college our dreamy eyed IT director wanted to switch all of our labs to thin clients. "Really you want to switch 60 top of the line workstations which need to stream HD video, render raytraced scenes and provide high frame rate viewports all on one server for 100+ people? What are you going to do stack 100 Quadro cards inside of a server along with 50 dual core processors? And you don't expect any software incompatibility problems?"

This is the IT person's dream. "No more computers to manage woohoo!" Unfortunately makes not sense in an environment where people actually need to use a computer.

Re:Wait happened to "hosted apps are bad". (4, Funny)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667575)

Wasn't the general concensus yesterday that "cloud" computing and web apps were too slow and too server intensive?

1. No.

2. People keep using that word, "cloud". I do not think it means what you think it means.

Virtual Machines.... It's all VM's (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667383)

Recent processors have very nice virtual machine support. KVM and qemu are great. From there on out it's clonezilla to the rescue.

You've got XP licenses, why not use them until the organization can migrate off windows and onto Linux? KVM will certainly get you there or even let you run your old app inside a vm. I did this for a guy that still uses a dos-based Real Estate application. He was stunned and supremely thankful.

Same old same old (1, Interesting)

artg (24127) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667389)

Microsoft have screwed their customers over and over again. The customers don't learn, or don't care. For any other field, they'd notice that their supplier had replaced junk with more junk and they'd go somewhere else. Or they'd notice that they were dangerously exposed by buying a single-sourced product and would look for a safer source.
But for some reason they're blind to these basic business rules. They'll whinge and moan and negotiate temporary discounts but in the end they'll just keep buying what Microsoft tell them too, because they're sheep.

Re:Same old same old (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667909)

because they're sheep.

He means ewe, ewe, and especially EWE!

Bzzt. Thanks for playing, though. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667399)

Corporations will hold on to XP as long as they can!

As soon as official support and patches stop for XP, then corporations will be forced to make a move; but no major moves until then. Corporations cannot accept the risk of unpatched vulnerabilities. Can you imagine what will happen when the next "no password required" [] bug comes out in a post XP support world.

Given a choice of Windows 7 (at $150/seat *), Corporation will move to Macs or to Linux, IMO. Windows 7 has rearranged the "furniture" with no real reason. Consultants are in charge for sure. WTF, what happened to the menus? Oh, by removing the menu, there's more "transparent" views to look at. Got to love that wallpaper!

* Windows 7 at $0 is another animal, though.

Uh you'll still be buying Windows Licenses...? (1)

Mantrid (250133) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667411)

Suppose this does come true. You're still paying MS for licensing at some point whether it's a VM or a real one. (I was actually wondering about this sort of idea the other day...our company is leary of VPN access to personal machines, so why not package up a VM and they can use that...their potentially infected machine doesn't actually touch the network itself right?)

Re:Uh you'll still be buying Windows Licenses...? (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667915)

(I was actually wondering about this sort of idea the other day...our company is leary of VPN access to personal machines, so why not package up a VM and they can use that...their potentially infected machine doesn't actually touch the network itself right?)

Ultimately Computer Security depends on Physical Security. If someone can get to the hardware on a box, there are all sorts of other things that need to be secured (bootloader/BIOS).

If you are distributing a VM image, then having the image could constitute "Physical Access". Not to mention that a host machine can usually transfer files to a VM, which could theoretically be used an a vector for infection by either a Virus or Trojan.

You're right that their machine doesn't actually access the network, but a truly paranoid Security Administrator would be running each VPN connection through a firewall that is limiting its access to only what it needs, and is requiring the "Something you know/Something you have" type of token authentication (like SecureID).

The BEST way to offer something like that would be to have a LiveDVD that would boot the machine and provide the VPN client (perhaps set p to work with a config file on a USB drive, since you'll need some way to save data if you want anyway). The host machine is booted off the DVD and is in a "clean" environment.

Yeah, its a bit extreme, and people can still defeat that if they want to, but for most it would be WAY too much of a hassle. The toughest part though would be how to enforce that people are using the LiveDVD to connect, instead of just installing the software on their home system and connecting "normally"?

More fear (5, Interesting)

jabjoe (1042100) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667419)

Everyone really is terrified by the idea of the Linux desktop aren't they.

Linux is use is growing here for people home use, even among non-programmers. It's free and fast. That's winning people. I think Linux is going main stream, and the more it does the more it will. It's coming up from the notebooks and down from the servers. It really does seam like the whole of the GNU/Linux world is going critical mass. Sorry Windows guys, you worse fears are coming. ;-)

Re:More fear (1)

javilon (99157) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667831)

I don't say it is not happening. You can see the stats at Wikipedia [] but I don't think it is happening fast enough.

I just hope that those that are jumping to Linux are power users so we get better bug reports and more programmers interested in helping. That would bring critical mass. But I am not sure I want Joe sixpack to use Linux just now. Maybe in a year.

Re:More fear (4, Interesting)

Mascot (120795) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667843)

Personally I am a big fan of Linux. Yet I still picked an XP netbook. My desktop still runs XP. My laptop still runs XP. My laptop at work still runs XP.

The fact is simply that everything I need and want to do, I can do in XP. The same is not true for Linux. It has huge gaps in its software availability. The cost of Windows in order to get access to all that software is negligible.

It's a Catch-22. Linux won't get major commercial interest before enough people are using it, and it won't get enough people using it unless the software is there.

I do have hope though. The snowball is definitely forming. But we're still a long ways off it starting to roll.

No, I win (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667453)

No, when Windows 7 loses, I win... I win $5, and the M$ fanboi that bet with me loses $5. Ha!

What exactly is the problem with XP? (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667457)

Can Microsoft or any other person in the know tell us what exactly is wrong with Windows XP? I cannot see the problem with it.

I use XP all the time and I can say that I am quite satisfied so far. Sometimes I just do not get it, therefore I wonder why Microsoft would want to replace it.

Re:What exactly is the problem with XP? (5, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667655)

I use XP all the time and I can say that I am quite satisfied so far. Sometimes I just do not get it, therefore I wonder why Microsoft would want to replace it.

Because the longer that XP is around, the closer Wine is to replicating the environment, and Linux is to overtaking it in usability.

That is one reason that MS wants to move forward.

Re:What exactly is the problem with XP? (1)

xenolion (1371363) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667663)

Well thats like saying whats wrong with Fords 08 Mustang why did they make a 09. Comes down to cash my friend and to say we have something "NEW"

Re:What exactly is the problem with XP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667841)

The 64-bit version of XP sucks, which means no 4+ GB of RAM. It's missing a few nice UI features, like a searchable start menu / control panel, and per-program volume adjustment. Oh, and no DirectX 10 support, which so far isn't a particularly big deal even for gamers.

For me it's mostly the 64-bit thing. The only reason I use Windows is because I develop Windows apps professionally. And I need to do a ton of testing on VMs from NT4 (really, it's still being used out there) to Vista. More RAM is a big help, so XP-32 is cramped, but Vista64 is sluggish crap in other ways. I'm mildly optimistic about Windows 7, though it'll be yet another platform to test.

no more monolithic OS environments (3, Interesting)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667479)

I'm just pontificating here but I think we might not see the vast sweeping in of some new wholly dominant OS but a fragmentation of various solutions that work. A company might run a uniform platform just for IT's sake but that doesn't mean the company next door is running the same flavor.

I really like OSX but I don't think Apple is trying to position it for the corporate desktop. The friendly Linuxes like Ubuntu remain incredibly strong.

People have been predicting the era of the thinclient for years. Their arguments were compelling but nothing happened. There's advantages to having thick clients and you're simply not going to be able to deliver graphically-intensive content over the pipe, not for at least another generation or three.

My prediction for what might make sense (not that it will 100% happen but at least is plausible) is for businesses to go with thick client closed box PC's. The phone system is the model here. There's nothing to tweak inside a PC anymore. There's not really any such thing as computer repair. At most you have a hard drive go bad, rarely a stick of ram dies. For the most part any problem is going to be software.

What we're going to see is all-in-one PC's on the typical desktop, built like the new iMac with the computer sitting in the back of the monitor. (Though there will also be the option of connecting a pure thinclient to the same network.) Easy to install, easy to replace. It will have a custom linux install on it and can run apps either locally or via citrix windows. These all-in-one PC's will also have multiple video ports so that additional monitors can be driven from the same machine. Legacy Windows apps will run in Wine, complicated legacy apps will be served via the citrix or whatever server, and new apps will probably be developed for Linux but served out for the legacy Windows boxes. That's the situation we're in now with web appps acting as the platform-agnostic way of serving data to PC, Mac, Linux, phones, etc.

I think for the typical 20 person office there will be one server in the back room running everything, maybe a failover box duplicating all of the resources. The major apps are housed locally so that they can keep working in case of a network problem but it will all phone back to the main office for synchronizaiton. Database-driven apps will work along the Google Gears model where offline copies of recent data are stored on the client or at the location's server so that failover from network problems is seamless. And because telephony is all going to IP, your phone guys and your computer guys will eventually become the same guy, it'll all fall under the aegis of "office electronic stuff."

I think we're going to see much longer product upgrade cycles since there isn't a compelling reason to upgrade every 2-3 years. We might see terminals lasting happily for 8-10 years, maybe longer. There will still be big-box PC's in the office for those who need something special but that will be the exception.

Now just because this all seems reasonable that's not to say it'll happen this way. But I just see a migration away from Windows, it seems like Microsoft simply cannot innovate fast enough these days. (maybe wishful thinking, maybe not.)

It Depends on the Definition of Upgrade (5, Interesting)

awitod (453754) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667509)

If he is talking about existing PC's then I agree. My gut tells me that most regular people never upgrade their operating system anyway.

If he is talking about businesses making the move when they replace equipment then I suspect he is quite wrong. Most businesses have avoided Vista not because they love XP, but because Vista has issues and requires beefy hardware. Windows 7 has two things going for it in this regard.

The first is that it does seem to be quite an improvement over Vista. I've used it continuously for the past three weeks and I quite like it. I do not like Vista. The Vista shell pisses me off for many different reasons that I won't go into here. Windows 7 fixes all of my little pet peeves and I really like the new window manager.

The second is that what was beefy expensive hardware when Vista shipped is now standard kit and quite inexpensive. Businesses in the U.S. can depreciate computers over five years. Any businesses PC purchased before 2005 will have fully depreciated by the time Windows 7 is an option and companies will be upgrading to new machines. A high-end computer purchased in 2005 or earlier probably did a terrible job running Vista. Most entry-level computers purchased in 2007-2008 to replace PCs purchased in 2002-2003 will run Windows 7 just fine.

Windows 7 will see significant uptake in businesses compared to Vista.

Avoiding vista due to user-training costs (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667783)

I recommend against changing OSes mainly due to user-training costs.

The same logic applies to upgrading office-productivity software suites.

Re:It Depends on the Definition of Upgrade (1)

EGenius007 (1125395) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667835)

I think that all these complaints about the uptake of Vista, and the resilience of XP, are a byproduct of a previous era. With Windows 3.x, 95, 98, 98 Second Ed., to a lesser extent 2000 Pro/ME (shudder), and finally with the release of XP 90% or more of the populace upgraded their individual PCs. Sure, uptake of 98 SE and ME may have been a bit below that, but XP uptake was probably in excess of 95% to compensate.

Both hardware vendors and Microsoft are praying that Windows 7 will bring back the days where a new OS justifies an upgrade on latest-gen hardware, or the purchase of a whole new system.

What they don't seem to realize is that until the release of XP all of the previous versions were unstable headache generators. People no longer feel compelled to upgrade because XP has become the tolerable version of a "devil you know" and Win Vista/7 is simply the "devil you don't".

First Post... (1, Interesting)

Legionaire (834947) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667511)

Citrix doing well at the moment comparatively speaking, shame they decided to lay off 10% of their workforce last year...

I could believe it but... (4, Insightful)

RingDev (879105) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667527)

Citrix is freaking expensive too!

And when you look at the difficulties and TCO on a Citrix farm, you're really no better off than if you just had a 5 year technology replacement plan anyways.

And when you look at what Citrix is trying to do, centralizing application execution, compared to the rise of Web Apps and instant deployments (click-once and the like), there is really no big gain by going to Citrix unless you are locked in to proprietary software that only runs on Windows.

Honestly though, you are significantly better off sticking to a 5 year replacement plan and pushing for web and low impact distributable applications.


Defamation of Character (1)

NonUniqueNickname (1459477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667579)

Microsoft blogger Mitchell Ashley...

Mitchell Ashley is not a Microsoft blogger. He's a blogger who often writes about Microsoft products. Not the same thing.
He's not related to Microsoft, never has been. []

Time for Apple to swallow their pride. (0)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667591)

I know Apple has had their own hardware from the start, but making a generic PC port wouldn't be such a bad idea. Seriously, the Hackintosh guys have proven it possible. If they were to sell their OS at the same price Windows usually goes for compatible with hardware the whole world uses they could take the crown.

I'm of course guessing there's a clause from when MS bailed them out that prevents that from happening.

Then of course if they did it they would just replace the old evil overlords with new evil overlords....

No it won't (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667601)

Those fat server, thin client people always think it's going to be their year. It will never be your year. Your year is long since past, the day of the main frame and green screen ruling is long gone.

People want power at their desk.

This is another reason "hosted" windoze won't thrive either. If I want to work offline I can. But if you have to connect to a server to just get into your OS, what happens when the network goes down?

Software dosn't age... (4, Interesting)

linebackn (131821) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667645)

"from their beloved, aging operating system "

Software does not age. People's requirements change. And that is just the problem (for MS), XP still meets the majority of needs for people.

It is all about compatibility... (1)

Targon (17348) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667693)

The issue always come back around to compatibility and what software people are running. If a business refuses to upgrade their software in a ten year period, then it should be expected they will run into trouble.

There is a point where moving to a fairly recent platform is a good thing as well. Now, except for certain code, most programs designed around Windows XP run well under Vista. The real issue is compatibility in the business world, and places that run old DOS code that just doesn't run under Vista.

If Windows 7 has compatibility issues, VMware and other companies that make virtualization products will be the real winners. Run Windows 98 in a virtual machine if it is really needed. We have dual and quad core processors in every new machine, so all that is needed now is a good VM. Maybe Microsoft should provide a micro-WinXP that comes with Windows 7 Ultimate, just for this purpose.

It's all about the GAMES stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667723)

Microsoft needs to release a "Windows 7: Games Edition" that has no features except the ability to run Windows games. Make sure it is as fast as XP at running games and they will continue to dominate. For the vast majority of users, Windows is simply a game launching utility. Microsoft needs to realize this and get with the bandwagon.

Citrix, web clients, Google Apps, whatever (1)

davidwr (791652) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667729)

It's all a move to push applications and data storage back to the glass house.

For some companies this is a very good idea.

For others it's not such a good idea.

Company, know thyself.

Stop... (1)

AVonGauss (1001486) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667749)

No, seriously, stop. The only people that want or envision a Citrix or a "web" based primary OS are those in the field or an IT department that wants to get paid the same for doing less. If you want to know what is going to happen if Windows continues to lose market share due to a higher cost, increased unnecessary complexity and lack of understanding about their consumer base you don't need to guess, simply look at what is happening today. Yes, some of the consumers have gone to Linux but quite a few have gone to an Apple based device with Mac OS X. I believe virtualization technologies are great, use them every day, but they have a place and purpose and replacing the desktop is not one of those. Same as with Google and Chrome, no, Chrome is not an operating system nor does it even come close. It is, an application, a browser, and a very good one at that. People, corporate or personal, are tired of messing with their computers just to do simple tasks that are now a part of every day life. So few corporations and developers seem to understand that today.

dumb (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667775)

dumb, dumb, dumb ....

*Cringe* (2, Funny)

Tarlus (1000874) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667833)

...they could deliver virtualized XP desktops to a worker's own PC and/or mobile device...

Anybody else just throw up a little bit in their mouth?

read the first line... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667865)

"Microsoft blogger Mitchell Ashley..."

so, why Citrix and not linux? uhm...

CITRIX? Beating Microsft? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26667877)

One should be completely sick to assume CITRIX can produce anything working nowadays. They successfully killed their flagship product (and destroyed engineering team that produced it). Most of the acquisitions never returned money that have been invested (probably, web conference being the only exception - and ONLY because it was always kept well separated. Win/Meta/whatever frame used to produce to much cash for a while so higher management was able to get away with negligence towards core teams and horrible marketing moves (wobbliness?). NOTE: no, i wasn't fired today, I left company on my own few years ago exactly for the reasons I am talking about.

Citrix vs. VMware (2, Interesting)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667907)

So it's been a while (like a decade) since I've used Citrix for work, but I'm pretty sure I hated it. Same thing with Exceed (performance and reliability really sucked compared to running cygwin+Xorg or even VNC).

I haven't been able to figure out from their website exactly what Project Independence is... though a link on the sidebar looks like it involves the Xen hypervisor. I think Xen is a good idea, I just haven't had any awesome experiences with it.

I do have lots of experience doing more or less exactly the same thing using the free VMware, VirtualBox, and qemu software. Those work great.

I run my "Work image" inside VMware, since I don't have or want all that much control over it. It's also a 32-bit WinXP image, and I'd rather run a 64-bit OS on the bare hardware. I use VirtuaWin to switch back and forth between the full-screen VMware guest session and the native Win2003 x64 Server running on my work laptop. That works pretty nice, though it took some experimentation to keep it from thrashing the pagefile with the VMware guest too much.

I still find VMware relatively cumbersome to install on Linux, so on those machines I much prefer running VirtualBox, which has simple Debian packages. I have WinXP and CentOS images there to run a few proprietary software packages that don't run under Debian for some silly reason.

Qemu is great for running and remastering KNOPPIX CDs / DVDs. It's a bit slower than the others, but much more straightforward.

FWIW, I just started playing with the Win7 Beta last week, and didn't think it was all that bad (I have actually never touched Vista). I think the transition from WinXP to Win7 will be easier than from Win3.11 to Win95 and also even from Win95 to WinXP; but maybe that's just because MS has trained me to expect it to be so much more painful :P But I didn't have too much of an issue with where they rearranged important control panel items and munged up the start menu this time.

My greatest complaint is that I can't make the "Start" icon smaller than 64x64 to shrink the size of the taskbar.

Seriously now... (2, Informative)

not already in use (972294) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667949)

It took me a day or two to overcome the differences from XP->Vista. Sure, there are some reasons to stick with XP (specifically on older hardware), but the idea that it's so radically different from XP that users will require significant orientation is ridiculous.

Web Services: The New Thin Client (3, Insightful)

tres (151637) | more than 5 years ago | (#26667957)

It's pretty evident from things like Google Apps and Microsoft's Live that the antiquated idea of a thin client is not going to be making its way back into the business.

  Enter the era of frugality. The decade of waste is over and now, whether by regulation or by pragmatic need to survive, business will be thinking about how to maximize the money that is available. Buying a newer version of the same thing isn't going to be happening anymore. Using the hardware and software that's already available will be more important than it ever was before.

Microsoft should just get smart and start charging for service pack updates to XP. Extend the life of the product and start monetizing it in different ways.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?