Ignore Vista Until 2008 338
Blakey Rat writes "According to Gartner in a research note entitled 'Ten reasons you should and shouldn't care about Microsoft's Windows Vista', businesses should wait until 2008 before installing Windows Vista, or 'pursue a strategy of managed diversity' by only bringing in new machines with Windows Vista and not upgrading existing computers. Although acknowledging the security benefits of upgrading, they explain in the report that most of the security-related benefits that come with Vista are available today through third-party software products."
The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:5, Funny)
wait, this IS windows we're talking about, isn't it?
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:2)
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:2)
It's a weird dichotomy.
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:5, Interesting)
What's wrong with Windows may very well be something that doesn't exist at Microsoft: elegance, simplicity and modularity of design. They are trying for that lately, at least they say they are, but it's going to be hard to change the mindset of everybody at Microsoft. They've always had very clever people but not very smart people, as exemplefied by Bill Gates himself. He's a man who is as shrewd as any suit in the room, but he has no sense of elegance. He's like that guy everybody knows who can do any math problem you give him, but who has the creativity of a field mouse. Elegance goes a long way in design, and a good OS is equal parts design and science, I think. You can have the tightest kernel in the world, but when some dipshit comes up with an idea like the Registry, it's all over.
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:3, Interesting)
What's wrong with the *idea* of the Registry ?
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:3, Interesting)
You seem to be talking an awful lot there about implementation there. Not to mention irrelevancies like "critical system information".
Even on NT-based Windowses, the registry is fragile, [...]
Amazing how with the registry being so "fragile", I've yet to see a single example of an actual Registry corruption in the wild, despite having been a sysadmin for many years.
About the only thing that is
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:3, Interesting)
The registry is a real point of failure; despite your attempts to deny it. I believe your experience is not typical of the majority of users of MS Windows.
A corporate system has characteristics that are unique to to such systems. For example: Corporate systems don't usually fill their hard drives with the myriad of software that are usually found in home systems: games, photo editors, educational programs, etc.
If you haven't seen any examples of registry problems then I assure you you will be surprised
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:3, Interesting)
2k is ok as a desktop if you keep the gates closed (Score:3, Interesting)
But none of them is suitable for the average computer
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:3, Insightful)
My NES still works but I bought a SNES. That still worked but I bought a 64 and then a GC. My X-Box still works and someday long after launch I'll get a 360. They weren't broke but I upgraded.
2000 worked pretty well for the most part(not too broken) but many people are running XP these days. XP isn't too broken but in the future many people will be using Vista. Improvements in functionality, security, and ease of use will eventually lead me to Vista. I don't plan on diving
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:3, Insightful)
I would say that Microsoft ran out of ideas years ago, but in their case, it's more like they couldn't find any more to steal.
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:3, Interesting)
They didn't just rewrite the old games to not work on the PSX, and then slap an "XP" suffix on the title.
Oh, well, that explains the rest of your post, doesn't it.
Funny you should put it like that. I mean, you haven't noticed that word processors were pretty well modern sometime in the middle of the 80s? Or that spreadsheets were not long after? File and print sharing too, for that matter. So just exactly where is the killer app that will take a
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:2)
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:2)
If it ain't broke, you're not trying. - Red Green
Don't worry, Microsoft will make sure that XP is broken by 2006. Blaster II is due any month now.
Re:The reason not to upgrade is... (Score:3, Informative)
* They are embracing the Google Personal Toolbar model; All explorer windows will have a "Search" bar embedded in them. Personally, the pervasive Search Toolbars annoy me, so this does not make me happier.
* MS is enforcing driver signing. More devices will require more strictly signed drivers. Supposedly, if it isn't signed, it won't install. The idea is to fForce manufacturers to wri
Perfectly Right! (Score:3, Funny)
;-)
What 2008? (Score:2, Funny)
Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
Though this article is pretty lame. First time I've read, "Ten reasons you should and shouldn't care about Microsoft's Windows Vista client," in a summary and the linked article doesn't even bother to list them.
This is news?
Re:Amazing (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Informative)
I was also rather disappointed at the lack of a list. TFA even italicizes the name of the research paper, but doesn't link it. Even a Google search [google.com] comes up with nothing, and everybody around here is too busy making "I've got one good reason" jokes to even realize it.
So...um...anybody got a link to the reasons?
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
And it was true then, too. I worked for a business for a few years who stuck with NT 4 when XP came out. Why? Because there was no reason to upgrade. For the last decade, Microsoft has been its own biggest competitor. For what most people do, Windows NT and Office 97 is entirely sufficient.
For the record, I think the company finally upgraded to Server 2003, but only because support ran out. The big reaso
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Informative)
You've probably heard it about linux, too. When 2.6 came out, I remember hearing lots of people say things like "That's nice, but I'll wait until about 2.6.10 before it's stable enough to try." And that took a full year, at least according to the timestamps at kernel.org.
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Informative)
WTF? If they do another scan of the film at a higher resolution before compressing it into and HD stream anything that was shot on film will look better in HD. In fact most films are scanned in in resolutions beyond what is needed for HD already, simply because they know HD is coming and it's cheaper to just scan the film stock once.
Now certain movies and TV shows were shot on video and not film, and these will show no improvement. But they are the exception and not the rule.
The fun ones (Score:2)
(The BBC is notorious for destroying original prints, for
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
Old movies are going to look wonderful in HD, particularly in large-screen projection. Think of any film by John Ford or Alfred Hitchcock from the silent era onward.
So.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Or...Does a business really need a 3-D desktop?
Re:So.... (Score:2, Funny)
"It's been years since I used a 2 dimentional control interface, how ever did we manage?" - Julian Bashire from an imperfect DS9 future
Re:So.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:So.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Phooey. Most users don't bother with 90% of the features of the current Office.
Re:So.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Heh. "Does a business really need color monitors, sound cards, 3D acellerators, and DVD burners?"
Considering that this 3D desktop paves the way for 300 DPI LCD screens down the road, the answer is most definitely yes. The catch is that it may not be an instant hit.
Re:So.... (Score:2)
Summary: Too Little, Too Late (Score:5, Interesting)
My main problem with the article was the lack of options specified:
Or you could just install Firefox, with the foxie plugin, and get completely secure browsing for all sites, and great Triton/IE support for intranet/extranet legacy webapps.Re:Summary: Too Little, Too Late (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, it sounds like the guy's not really trying to rip on Windows, so much as he's offering sound business advice. Right? I mean, what's the benefit of rushing out and buying the latest version when the current one coupled with the third party software that you probably already have installed, is perfectly adequate?
Re:Summary: Too Little, Too Late (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Summary: Too Little, Too Late (Score:2, Informative)
Or you could just install Firefox, with the foxie plugin, and get completely secure browsing for all sites, and great Triton/IE support for intranet/extranet legacy webapps.
What, this Foxie? [getfoxie.com]
It's not a Firefox plugin at all. It's an IE plugin! It's not related to Firefox in any way except that they are hijacking the brand name. Don't let them get away with it.
11th Reason.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:11th Reason.. (12th Reason) (Score:2)
Oh, great (Score:2, Funny)
And this is news... how? (Score:2)
Re:And this is news... how? (Score:2)
Ten reasons?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trusted Computing.
'nuff said.
Re:Ten reasons?? (Score:3, Insightful)
People who don't know what this really implies are going to be dumbfounded when they find out
Re:Ten reasons?? (Score:2)
So far, it seems like it'll be like this -- download DRM HDTV movie from the web, and Vista with its trusted computing initiative will require a special monitor to playback it, or show it in reduced resolution. Sure, that sounds horrible, but what will you get in another OS? Yes, either the same behavior (DRM feature supported), an illegal version (DRM feature crack
Re:Ten reasons?? (Score:2)
Re:Ten reasons?? (Score:2)
Re:Ten reasons?? (Score:4, Insightful)
I never understand comments like these. How exactly does DRM do that? How does DRM "force" a developer to charge a whole lot of money? If DRM were in place today and I was a freeware developer, what prevents me from just issuing a DRM key (or whatever the process is) and making my terms of agreement "anyone who requests one gets one and I charge nothing". Or does Microsoft beat down your door and say "NO, YOU HAVE TO CHARGE $500 PER USER!!11!!"
If you think that Microsoft is somehow going to force all software developers to pay some rediculous per application fee, thus forcing them all to charge for their app, thus whittling down the market to like 3 major apps, your tinfoil hat is on too tight.
If there's one thing Bill Gates knows its that his fortune was built on Windows having zillions of developers covering all possible realms of software from Diet Calculators to 3D Animation. Maybe the phrase "Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!" rings a bell. Developers have to eat too, and once all of them can't afford to turn a profit off writing code for Windows unless they're one of the few working at Symantec or Microsoft or Adobe, they'll find a new career or OS to write for.
About the last scenario Microsoft wants is ONLY the major software developers like Adobe and Macromedia left standing, because they consistantly port their applications to OSX. If you were "forced" to quit using your $50 Paint Shop Pro, and replace it with $500 Photoshop instead, well then theres a 50/50 chance you may just become an OSX customer.
Microsoft may be corporate-evil, but they definately believe in small developer shops and know legions of developers and all their varying business models from freeware to $5,000/user licenses are the foundation of the Microsoft machine.
Re:Ten reasons?? (Score:3, Insightful)
The ultimate goal is to create a DRM-structure of Microsoft-"approved" software, ie just like drivers. And a freeware developer can't afford that.
Of course you will be able to run not-approved software (with scary warning dialogs) at first, but the final goal is to create a closed syst
This is always the case. (Score:2)
By that time... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, ReactOS will be installed in a dual-boot with the latest Linux, which I hope, will be user-and-hardware friendly by then.
One thing regarding ReactOS... (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as Linux keeps providing me with... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Microsoft Solution... (Score:2)
Besides ruining the entire rational of a Microsoft Solution (i.e., upgrade the sucker and pay the man), why invest in third-party products that you're going to discard when you upgrade to Windows Vista? Just bite the bullet and enjoy the pain. Or wait until the first Service Pack comes out.
Re:The Microsoft Solution... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, and while you are waiting for Windows Vista to actually ship you can just run your business with some paper and a stack of pencils.
Gartner has this one right. Unless you are willing to eschew using computers altogether you have to invest in the third-party products now. When Vista does ship you could toss that investment out the Window (ha ha) and pay extra to get Windows Vista, or you can simply hold off on purchasing Windows Vista until purchasing new machines. Considering the number of busines
Nukem Forever (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't this Already the "Word on the Street"? (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows XP actually released in 2001 - 4 years ago (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001 [wikipedia.org]
Re:Isn't this Already the "Word on the Street"? (Score:2)
still ignoring XP !! (Score:2)
Really, by the time Vista actually sees the light of day, won't there be Intel Powerbooks sitting around soaking up any spare attention I might have ?
Laughing at these articles is as much attention as Vista is likely to get from me ( or the company I work for ) any time soon...
Reason #1... (Score:2)
* With adjustment for slippages from expected 2006 release date
Ignore Vista? (Score:2)
#11 (Score:2)
Microsoft has never, ever, got anything right on the first try. If you even consider switching a company network to Vista before Service Pack 1 is out, you should be liable for any damages due to gross negliegence.
Video Games (Score:2)
Firewall, I have a nat router for that reason and turned off upnp, and avg freeware.
Quicker tcp/ip stack, now if it improves my downloads or ping, maybe we have a winner.
No need to hurry (Score:2)
Linux is different though. Some distributions stay fixed, some like Gentoo are gradually upgraded. But at least they don't suddenly switch to a new interface, start requiring twice the amount of memory and introduce restrictions that are only for Microsoft's benefit.
improved Kerberos support is a reason to upgrade (Score:2)
This is the LAST Windows you'll ever buy!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is the LAST Windows you'll ever buy!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is the LAST Windows you'll ever buy!! (Score:3, Interesting)
With Windows XP I won't be able to install/use it in 10 years if I so desire (and yes, I recently just installed
a fresh usable MS-DOS box). With Windows 2000 I will be able to do this in 10 years (and block it from
Internet access altogether [as is already practice for Windows boxes in our offices
discontinues XP what do you think the average Joe will do when it comes time to activat
You need 10 reasons? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. OS X
2. Ubuntu
3. Win2000
4. $250
"Upgrade" boycott doesn't ignore Vista (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm also disagree with his reasons, but I'm not going to take the "flame-bait"
Not a problem (Score:2)
Re:"Upgrade" boycott doesn't ignore Vista (Score:3, Informative)
Err, I don't know about HP or IBM, but Windows 2000 just dropped out of Dell's product line about a year ago. Three years after XP's release.
I would expcet Dell to offer a similar choice after Vista is released, and for just as long.
Re:"Upgrade" boycott doesn't ignore Vista (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows ME all over again? (Score:2, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't seem like they could even break soft
Ignore Vista Until 2008 (Score:5, Funny)
Developers - the musical by Steve Ballmer (Score:2, Interesting)
Developers [achurch.org] [mirror] [tarmo.fi]
Have you tried it? (Score:3, Interesting)
- Software development (VS Studio 2003)
- Email / Browsing
- Gaming
First impression, wow this is great.
After 6 weeks, my impression have change, Vista (as of currently is pretty crap). I've got multiple reboot, blue screen, IE 7 is having a lots of issue (page not rendering properly, JavaScript error for example Google Spell checker not working properly on IE 7). The search "engine" is not that great, why we can't keep our old *.exe find?
Over that many application not working at all, some desktop application, other are game that just don't launch. Even stable program like SQL Enterprise Manager crash on Vista...
Vista new graphical engine is deadly slow too, all is on graphic card but this cause issue like to see the backbuffer when switching application and more. Application are not build like game with "Begin drawing" and "End drawing" so that cause to constantly redraw the screen and see flicker everywhere...
Iwill receive my new portable next week and I will definitely not install Vista on it... for me I agree with the report... I stay with Windows XP for a few years.
Re:Have you tried it? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Have you tried it? (Score:2, Interesting)
I already have a plan. (Score:3, Funny)
A single decision doomed Windows security (Score:4, Interesting)
In Win32, every module (EXE/DLL) is contiguous in the process virtual address space. The code and data are next to each other in each module, but not between modules. The stack and heap are allocated as blocks at essentially random addresses. The memory layout looks like this:
empty code data empty stack empty code data empty heap
The problem is that there is no single address that you could choose that says "only code is allowed below this address, and no code is allowed above this address".
On the x86, before AMD64, it was impossible to tell the processor that certain memory addresses cannot be executed. Anything that was readable was also executable. This means it is possible to execute from the data areas, a fatal flaw.
However, the x86 *does* have a feature that allows you to say "no code is allowed above this address". This is known as the "CS limit". By setting this, any attempt to execute from a data area would crash the program. Crashing the program is a lot better than taking over your computer.
Win32's memory layout prevents this feature from being used, because if you try to set a limit, either you have data in the code area, allowing exploits, or you have code in the data area, preventing legitimate code from executing.
AMD tried to correct this with the NX bit in the AMD64 chips, but it was too late. Too many Win32 programs rely on the ability to execute from a data section. As a result, in XP SP2 and Vista, the feature is only enabled by default in a few programs. You can turn it on for all, but then a lot of copy-protected games won't run.
Linux usually has the same problem. However, because most Linux programs come with source, it is possible to modify every application in the system to work this way.
Melissa
Re:Perhaps we should wait until 2008 (Score:5, Funny)
Ha! Mod that up! (Score:2)
Re:Perhaps we should wait until 2008 (Score:2, Flamebait)
Okay, I give you the benefit of the doubt - since it's in the first few posts, the other poster probably hadn't shown up yet.
I'll go find the one-hundred-fiftieth post that will say the same thing...
Re:Let's jump the gun because we're researchers (Score:3, Informative)
Re:why 2008? (Score:2)
Re:Not only Vista... (Score:4, Interesting)
I do corp help desk for a living supporting MS Office Applications and I would disagree with this part of your statment.
MS Office Apps are not intuitive nor easy to use for the average Joe office worker. It is why they pay me money to show people how to use them on a daily basis.
You may of course believe them to be so, but put someone who has no training infront of a windows box and you see the same mistakes over and over again by different people. Its a kind of bashing a head against my desk kind of job but its a living.
I could give specific examples about Track Changes and a few other settings that people think they should act a certain way but don't, but I could go on and on.
Re:So how about...Macs (Score:5, Informative)
And of course you're just wrong too: Mac users have not had to wait more than three months for a update over the last five years. And Apple delivered a whole new version every 12 months for the last 4 years. Based on the upgrade statistics, not may Mac users have been waiting to upgrade.
Preferably, the feature updates come out fast and furious, but remain compatible enough, so that you don't have to upgrade until you chose to do so. So, you can live without Tiger unless you want a some of the latest wizzy apps and features.
Microsoft has given its users no major upgrades since XP in 2001. "XP Server" slipped to 2003. Longhorn/Vista was promised and delayed in 2004, 2005, and 2006. What does ship will be XP with some Tiger features.
In the same timeframe, Apple has shipped four major OS upgrades and over 15 free "service pack" style upgrades that involve significant OS retooling, much faster performance on the same hardware, and lots of significant UI and API improvements. Including, of course, much of what Microsoft had promised in Vista.
During that time, Microsoft has continuously redefined its planned feature set in Longhorn, lopping off promised features and extending the delivery date over half a decade.
Re:So how about...Macs (Score:3, Informative)
But um, that's basically two new things (IE popup blocking, and the Security Center which does the other things I mentioned - XPSP1 already had a firewall and automatic updates, this just makes them mo