Beta

×

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!

Corporate America Not Ready For Vista

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the intel-giveth-and-microsoft-taketh-away dept.

Windows 317

thefickler writes to point out a TechBlorge article about a study indicating how few corporate computers now deployed are capable of running Windows Vista. The article says that the study, by Softchoice, will be released next week. The study found that 50% of the PCs inventoried (from a sample of 112,000 from 472 organizations) are below Vista's basic system requirements. Roughly half of those PCs will need to be replaced outright to run Vista. 94% of corporate PCs are not ready for Vista Premium Edition. The article notes that the need to upgrade hardware "could... mean that organizations will hold off upgrading to Windows Vista until their next hardware refresh," as some analysts have been saying for a while now.

cancel ×

317 comments

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

Not ready for IE7 either (4, Insightful)

eples (239989) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084250)

Corporations aren't ready for IE7, either.

This stuff takes time. Let's do IE7 first, Microsoft. Then push Vista down our throats.

Re:Not ready for IE7 either (2, Funny)

Marrshu (994708) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084294)

Nonsense! They must push new DRM measures to prevent corporate workers from watching unautorized porn videos at work.

Re:Not ready for IE7 either (3, Insightful)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084448)

Which raises the question..are there AUTHORIZED porn videos for work? Maybe if you work for a porn website?

Re:Not ready for IE7 either (0, Offtopic)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084726)

The hardware lab at one company that I worked at routinely had "spanking monkeys" videos (yes, actual monkeys spanking each other in tender ways) running on one of the unused monitors. I think this was a replacement for an audio tape that had a drum beat and whipping sounds.

Re:Not ready for IE7 either (4, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084708)

Why should they wait? Let them push their products and wait for their revenues if they wish?

Lacking Vista sales is their problem, not ours.

Re:Not ready for IE7 either (4, Funny)

pilgrim23 (716938) | more than 7 years ago | (#17085000)

Recently our shop took a perfectly functional, and working softwre interface down replacing it with a bug riddenm not ready for prime time and STILL doesn't work right months later .NET product. The Microsoft or no soft mindset is alive and well so as you see, we are ready to implement Vista, IE 7, or Tooth Fairy 4.0 as long as it shines with the light reflected from Ballmer's bald spot...

Their main market? (3, Interesting)

tmandry (710511) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084286)

...and the workplace is really Windows' main market. I'm willing to guess that at least half their profits come from corporations. The question is, why do they seem to be switching targets?

Re:Their main market? (4, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084342)

Windows is not switching targets. Corporations are trying to get by with the low end systems like Celeron , 256 - 512 ram, and gma And that was good for the 4-5 year old xp but not for the new and bloated windows vista.

Also M$ needs some thing to stand up to OSX.

Re:Their main market? (1)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084662)

GMA is new hotness compared to what actually passes for corporate hardware. Hell, I've seen entire companies built on old Pentium IIs with lots of RAM.

Re:Their main market? (5, Insightful)

igb (28052) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084378)

The computer industry needs to face up to the fact that computers are now `good enough'. For most current desktop purposes --- email, word processing of small documents, web browsing, running corporate applications (usually client/server) and so on, a 2006-spec PC will do the job. There's not been a compelling feature in desktop Windows since NT 5 --- witness the reluctance for Windows 2000 shops to move to XP --- nor in Office since 2000. Except for providing toys for your younger employees to play with (a dubious benefit), why would any shop with >1GHz machines running NT>=5 and office >=2000 want to upgrade? How would you show the cost/benefit?

ian

Re:Their main market? (1)

fimbulvetr (598306) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084432)

I would say that if MS is correct in asserting that vista won't need A/V software, which I highly doubt, that would justify an upgrade.

Re:Their main market? (4, Insightful)

twiddlingbits (707452) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084516)

Cost/benefit of upgrading could be better warranty, better vendor support, both of which may mean lower support costs. Support costs are big factors in what gets chosen. How about less power use by the newest generation of CPUs and hard drives, when a company has 1000's of Desktops that power bill is a factor. Also products reach End-Of-Life where they are no longer supported by the vendor. Those would be my Top 3 reasons to upgrade.

I too don't see a lot of Apps (except Windows bloatware) forcing upgrades. Which I hope is good news for Linux on the Corporate Desktop. With GNOME and other GUIs, OpenOffice and various other open source "office" applications you can have the same functions as a Windows PC but need a lot less CPU and Memory. And the cost to "license" Linux and the apps is a heck of a lot lower than MS products not to mention the GPL (and CDL) and not nearly as bad as the MS shrinkware licenses.

Power Use? (3, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#17085192)

Proposed justification of Visat/Hardware purchase:

How about less power use by the newest generation of CPUs and hard drives, when a company has 1000's of Desktops that power bill is a factor.

"Vista Ready" machines are going to suck more power, not less. The demand much greater clock rates, video support and RAM. Compare this to the average coporate network full of PIIIs more or less. "Vista Premium" of course is much worse.

I'll believe the better power management hype when I see it in operation. If M$ cared about your electric bill, ACPI and WOL would already work. When I can buy a desktop from Dell that works that way, I'll say it's about time.

Re:Their main market? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17084522)

I agree but many companies use the "newest and greatest" to attract talent. Potential employees want it wether it is needed or not. The fact that a P3/1Ghz is more then enough to run XP/2000, MS Office and a few company specific specialized apps is not relavent (my company had Compaq EN815's which were that spec a few years ago and they worked fine). A person fresh out of a top tier law school looking for a prestigous place to work is going to use technology capabilities and gadgets as one of the deciding factors. There is a huge amount of surveys and reports about potential employers and what they offer and how the existing employees use and adapt to technology. Everyone in the industry reads it.
See how excited a magna cum laude or summa cum laude gets when you tell him/her that you have 5 year old laptops and are running Windows 2000.
To be honest, I'm only an IT person with no honors and I would second guess going that was still using Windows 2000 for the primary desktop platform.

Aside from the attract talent motive to upgrade, there is always just as many companies that upgrade just to do it and ROI is not even considered. You will never be fired for choosing MS or considering using the "newest" version.

Re:Their main market? (1)

WhoBeDaPlaya (984958) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084588)

>>You will never be fired for choosing MS or considering using the "newest" version. Ugh, not that old Wintel argument rearing it's ugly head again. We just broke the barrier not too long ago when corporate folks finally started using AMD en masse.

Re:Their main market? (2, Interesting)

OfNoAccount (906368) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084718)

Computers, like most complex devices have a failure rate that forms a bell curve - most failures either occur at the start of the product lifespan (in which case it'll be covered by the warranty), or towards the end. Those 1GHz machines are starting to get into unreliable territory.

Usually around the time that machines start failing, spare parts also become harder to find. When did you last see a new PII-400? Or perhaps a new Slot1 motherboard? If you can find a new one it'll probably cost more than a whole new machine!

You may also find that new perhiperals may not be compatible - maybe the drivers require a recent OS to install, or you need a port that those old machines don't have.

Finally, as has already been mentioned, given a choice between two identical companies, one with the latest computers and flat screens, and another with crap machines and blurry 15" CRT's - it's not rocket science to work out which I'd prefer. A few years ago, I worked at one of the latter - my developer friend had a 386DX40 w4Mb/RAM as his NT4 devbox, logon might take 15mins, compilation may happen overnight - the target customer boxen were dual P133 w/128Mb. I was alpha testing the software under Win95, and the customer was running NT - needless to say sometimes something that tested fine on my system wouldn't even install on theirs... New computers are pretty cheap compared with the losses of key staff turnover, and frustrated clients!

Re:Their main market? (2, Insightful)

Sj0 (472011) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084732)

"In this slide, we can see the huge penis you'll get if you buy this product."

Re:Their main market? (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084766)

Office 2003, and specifically Outlook 2003 is MUCH better than Office 2000.

Re:Their main market? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17085062)

Computers have been "good enough" for the vast majority of corporate deskslave users (word processing, email, web, spreadsheets, minimal graphics) since the late 90s. It's got to the stage now that desktop computers are only pushed even moderately hard by gamers, porn addicts, and the occasional geek doing simulation work (when not watching porn).

The cost-benefit lies in the ms monopoly. By discouraging use of older os' (limited support, unnecessary incompatabilities, fud) they can make the cost of support increase to the point where it actually *does* make economic sense just to buy new machines, install the latest shinything version 10e6 and be done. Sad, but unfortunately true in many cases.

Re:Their main market? (3, Insightful)

Nordrick Framelhamme (707613) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084526)

They are doing this because M$' entire business model is based on SELLING their OS and/or application suites.

As the market reaches saturation point, as it likely has given how long Windows eXPploitable has been out, the income from such software starts to drop off. Therefore the income stream has to be boosted again by releasing a "new" product.

By making it seem that the new OS ias more secure than the last, not really a hard task given M$'s track record thus fare, they hope to lure in the flashing lights and shiny dudads brigade, namely upper management dolts who have as much technical clue and the average ant and who are attracted to fake exteriors, as evidenced by the trophy wives on many arms. These PHB's fall for the vendors marketing slimeballs blather and the sales droids blandishments and force the IT department to roll out the whole unholy mess on the poor suffering masses that actually do the work.

Re:Their main market? (1)

leamanc (961376) | more than 7 years ago | (#17085196)

Because losing mindshare among the home users to Apple and their iLife way of doing things will cause lots and lots of chairs to be thrown in Redmond.

Why release to business first? (2, Insightful)

Thyrus (973839) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084292)

Why do Microsoft always release to businesses first? I know that businesses will not use Vista until SP1 at the earliest surely one of the worlds largest companies should know this. I would imagine with their inside knowledge of Vista they will be staying away until SP2 anyway.

Vista is the new ME (4, Insightful)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084324)

"article about a study indicating how few corporate computers now deployed are capable of running Windows Vista"

That's exactly the point. They want businesses to toss away the old computers and buy new ones with Vista. The know that if they try and release Vista into the public market first, it will flop as badly as ME did because it brings no significant improvements over XP, while it takes away features, and adds bad things like PVP DRM.

Re:Vista is the new ME (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084422)

It took years for businesses to drop Windows 2000. There may still be many still using it. I really don't think any business is going to upgrade to Vista until their replacement cycle is up. Microsoft can't expect any business to push up their computer replacements because they have a new version of Windows, and I don't think they can expect them to just upgrade their operating systems. The best I can say is maybe the IT departments will purchase copies to test against their software inventory so they can keep tabs on incompatibilities.

Re:Vista is the new ME (2, Insightful)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084440)

That's all well and good, but what features exactly were taken away in Vista that were found in XP? How is playback of encrypted content a bad thing? Is there some magic mechanism which disables your ability to play unencrypted content?

You may very well be right in that MS wants people to buy new hardware although this makes very little sense given that Microsoft is not primarily a hardware company. This type of move would make sense if Apple did it given that they provide both but in your context I just see one logical leap after the next.

Of course I could be the one that's way off base, I'll leave it to you to decide that.

Re:Vista is the new ME (3, Informative)

From A Far Away Land (930780) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084550)

"That's all well and good, but what features exactly were taken away in Vista that were found in XP?"
It won't work on computers already in place in businesses, so that's a heck of a feature retraction. I consider backward hardware compatibility an important feature.

  "How is playback of encrypted content a bad thing? Is there some magic mechanism which disables your ability to play unencrypted content?"
It's called DRM. Protected Video Path will one day require users to have a certain new monitor to play their store bought movies and video content. When Microsoft and software vendors decide what you get to play unencrypted on your computer, it's not even your own computer anymore.

Re:Vista is the new ME (1, Redundant)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084660)

That's an interesting view of reality you have there. You believe Microsoft invented the hardware restrictions that the MPAA and RIAA are trying to force down our throats? Sounds to me like you've missed your mark completely. Microsoft is a software company and if they want to play encrypted content it is good business for them to support it. There are no restrictions whatsoever on non-encrypted content so I still don't see what your gripe is.

Backwards compatibility is not a feature, if you're going to complain about it then let's have a discussion about computers unable to run SUSE 10.1. Why can't I run it on my 386? or my 486? Why oh why did they remove that feature they are evil. Get over it, Microsoft saw that newer machines were largely going to waste with CPU usage below even 1% so they decided that they could utilize more of it and make the user experience more enjoyable. Their level of success is up for debate but calling backwards compatibility a feature is just not right. Sure it could play into your decision process to buy or not but it's not a feature of the product. I can buy my nice new THX speakers and they will sound great, oh, now they are 30% off? That feature puts it over the top for me, I'll buy em!

Re:Vista is the new ME (3, Interesting)

shywolf9982 (887636) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084956)

Microsoft saw that newer machines were largely going to waste with CPU usage below even 1% so they decided that they could utilize more of it and make the user experience more enjoyable.

However I agree with your post, I have to correct you on this issue:

  1. average cpu utilization will be as low as it currently is with vista. Effects are calculated when actually someone does something (like moving windows, pulling down menus and whatever else), not if the computer is idle.
  2. so effects are drawn when the cpu gets busy, hence not alleviating at all the "burst effect" we currently see on cpu usage
  3. the burst effect isn't bad at all (see cpu freq scaling)
  4. all the effects calculation are made using the 3d power of the GPU through direct3d
  5. effects were added because users like it. I've been using XGL and AIGLX for several months, and now everytime i fall back onto a non-accelerated desktop I feel bad (btw, you don't know how addictive the rotating desktop and/or wobbly windows can become)

Re:Vista is Broken in Many Ways (4, Informative)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17085096)

Let's start with some facts:

Vista's *six* SKU's are sold in various states of disabledness. For example, if you want to use a DVD burner, you must upgrade. Hmmm,.no matter the version of XP you could use a DVD burner... That's just one of many restrictions.

Let's move to your clearly uninformed question: "Is there some magic mechanism which disables your ability to play unencrypted content?"

Why, yes there is! The latest WMP phones home to MS when you play a song and catalogs your content. When the inevitable OS reinstall happens and you attempt to play the same songs you get some bad news. It seems it's okay to play the music on that "other" OS install, but not this one. You agree to this when you click-through licenses. Here's a link to a guy that experienced it. http://www.bandddesigns.com/blogger/arch/002942.ht ml [bandddesigns.com]
Here's Microsoft's SDK http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/wmpsdk11/mmp_sdk/glossary.asp [microsoft.com] Search the term "component enforces those rights." on the page.

Now, Microsoft and their media friends are taking away your right to first sale as secretly as possible. Vista will help them meet that end very nicely. Set top boxes and a variety of media subscription models will help greatly as well. Add in dragging some children into court and consider it done.

I assure you, this is only the beginning. Please consider using another OS that ensures your current freedoms. Many Linux distros are good,

I'm sure the above-average PHB senses this anyway. Which is part of the reason the Vista uptake will be so slow.

Re:Vista is the new ME (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084698)

XP > Vista is NOT the equivalent of Win98 > WinME.

"...will flop as badly as ME did because it brings no significant improvements over XP, while it takes away features, and adds bad things like PVP DRM."
Examples please? What features were taken away? As for DRM, if you don't want to be affected by DRM, DON'T BUY CONTENT PROTECTED WITH DRM. What does DRM have to do with businesses anyway?

Re:Vista is the new ME (4, Informative)

RobertLTux (260313) | more than 7 years ago | (#17085164)

did you hapen to know that bitlocker is basically volume level DRM? so that means if any of the following happens

1 you lose the password to the account and your "root" admin gets run over by a bus
2 some random Zero day borks the account
3 a DDOS on the authentication server burns your block of COA serials
4 Microsoft just one day "decides" that your system is unauthorized (maybe you are in Their way)

You are shall we say "traversing the proverbial polluted tributary without visible means of propulsion" or "afixed via a rotated metal rod with a spiral fin"

we are holding off (5, Informative)

p51d007 (656414) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084560)

Our company isn't in any hurry to upgrade, nor are a lot of companies I talk to. Most like ours, have spent a lot of capital in the last 24 months upgrading from NT4 to XP, from Office 2000 to Office 2003. We have XP tweaked out, locked down, patched up and running perfectly, sort of the way we had NT4/Office2000 tweaked. If we were to upgrade to Vista, to get the same performance, we would have to dump an extra 512 meg of ram into every box, since we have them running 512meg now. XP for our purposes runs pretty well with 512 meg of ram, but on a couple of test boxes, 512 meg with Vista is like running XP on 256. Yeah it runs, but you do a lot of swapping. For now, we are holding off on Vista/Office07, until at the earliest Q2 of 07. Any NEW computers bought/built, will be built with an OS update in mind, but will come configured with XP, NOT Vista.

Re:Why release to business first? (2, Informative)

reemul (1554) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084572)

Big corporations are going to take months if not a year or more to actually start a large-scale rollout of any major software change, much less a new operating system. MS and everyone else releases to them early so they can start the process. (Well, and it makes the companies feel special.) The corps will test on boxes that approximately match what they think will be on the desks when the new system would go into production, not what is there now. They're the ones that drive the patches and the service packs, testing with so many possible interactions with different application packages. Small companies and home users will likely just be running common stuff that is tested for in the QA lab, and they'll still find bugs anyway.

And the biggest corps of all will ask for lame features just to prove how big and powerful they are, to get MS to give in to something stupid. Better to get those out of the way before you release to manufacturing. (You thought it was the 5 employee legal office that asked for the 3 pages of menus to set all those intricate rules for bullet points in Word? It was probably the secretary of some high level exec at a customer with several thousand desks to push software to.)

Of course they'll wait for a big patch package or SP before they'll roll out. It gives them time for other people to find the bugs by hitting them first, so they don't have to. If that sounds mean, consider that this QA model is pretty much how a lot of open source projects work, the lots-of-eyeballs model. It's still herding sheep through the minefield looking to see what goes boom. OSS guys just feel better about finding a flaw, like they are part of the team.

As an aside, I used to be a QA guy. I liked actually getting paid to find bugs, not simply doing it because it made me feel warm and tingly. I reported a bug to Real Networks once, looking to see if they had a fix. They wanted me to walk through the steps to reproduce the error since they hadn't see it before, I told them what my rates were. The phone call ended pretty soon afterward.

Re:Why release to business first? (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084582)

Why do Microsoft always release to businesses first?

Maybe because businesses buy in bulk and only require OEM-style white-box packaging? It probably takes a while to gear up a full marketing blitz for the retail channel, complete with ads in magazines, end-of-aisle displays at CompUSA, etc. Plus, it probably makes more sense to market Vista directly to consumers once the majority of new PCs in the stores are shipping with it pre-installed.

Re:Why release to business first? (4, Interesting)

dan828 (753380) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084680)

The big reason for pushing out the business editions first was because MS sold a lot of Software Assurance licenses with the understanding that Vista upgrades would be included. The first licenses are going to begin expiring this month, so MS would have been in the position of having to extend those licenses to meet their promises. The enterprise sector would have looked on software assurance for the OS as being just a bill of goods that MS was trying to sell them if Vista hadn't shipped within the license date.

Re:Why release to business first? (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084936)

Isn't it obvious?

By shipping to everyone who has a software assurance/volume licensing contract, Microsoft can then proclaim "(n) hundred thousand seats shipped" prior to anyone even installing it, let alone actually forking over cash for an OEM or retail copy. It's PR, pure and simple, and Microsoft knows darn well that very, very few seats will get installed at companies which subscribe to these services for at least a year thanks to the hesitation to upgrade out of (reasonable) fear that Vista will break their current software, network and processes.

It's much like RIAA label tactics: force-feed thousands of copies of CDs to certain retailers, send "undercover" mystery shoppers to buy 20 or more copies of the CDs as "individuals" rather than label employees (all while accounting the "purchase cost" back to the artist, resulting in accrual of debt to the label forcing turtuous touring schedules upon the artist), all to force the record to chart in Billboard's listings. They can claim "X million sold" and hijack airwaves based on billboard listings (forcing airplay) without any real customers actually actively buying anything.

Look, I'm a psychic guru! (1, Flamebait)

Inf0phreak (627499) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084296)

Surprised? I sure am not. I don't think a lot of corporate PCs out there have 1Gb memory -- let alone half a gigabyte. Heck, most computers out there probably struggle just to run Fisher Pri^W^W XP... At least Dell/Gateway and the memory makers is going to (eventually -- i.e. when MS stops support on 2k/XP) make a killing off of that OS.

Re:Look, I'm a psychic guru! (1)

mobby_6kl (668092) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084428)

I'd say corporate PCs have a higher probability of having half a gig of RAM than one whole gigabyte.

The whole story is, of course, retarded. Nobody will be going around thousands computers to reinstall the OS the day it becomes available (legally) for business.

Re:Look, I'm a psychic guru! (2, Insightful)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084446)

Last place I worked, All the PCs had at least 512MB, and those were 4 years old. That vast majority had 1GB and the ones that just came in this year had 2GB. 4 year replacement cycle and every PC in that building should be capable of running Vista.

What about Universities? (2, Informative)

reaktor (949798) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084310)

They are like corporations, size-wise. Heck one of my last schools just recently made the switch from Windows 2000 to XP SP2. I begged them to get rid of Netscrap and use Firefox on the computers, but the IT department said no. I don't know why Universities want to hang on to Netscape so much. Nescrap and new Win XPSP2. That's the computing life in public US Universities. So it will be at least two years before Vista makes it to computers there.

Re:What about Universities? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17084430)

"Nescrap and new Win XPSP2. That's the computing life in public US Universities."

This sounds like a kink unique to your institution. The local public U in my area has Firefox on the desktop of all lab PC's. I believe they still run Win2k3 also.

That isn't the computing life in my university (2, Interesting)

technoextreme (885694) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084464)

That's the computing life in public US Universities.
Says you. My university has Macs, Unix computers, and of course Windows.

Zune 2.0 (0, Flamebait)

Brill (691333) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084312)

it always amazes me how Microsoft stays relevant just because it's Microsoft. they can throw money at any problem, Vista, the Zune, whatever. Even if the problem is lousy design and consumer consideration.

Corporate America Not Ready For Vista (4, Insightful)

Bradac_55 (729235) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084326)

How's that different from Win2K and WinXP? Same thing happened then. Microsoft's monopoly isn't on good software it's there ability to tie up all the major hardware vendors into all or nothing licenses to push Windows on new computer sales. It must be another slow news day.

Re: Corporate America Not Ready For Vista (1)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084700)

While you are spot on with XP, with 2k the upgrade from NT 3 was immense. 2k was lightyears beyond NT or 98, which is why it replaced everything else as quickly as it did.

In fact, MS really shot itself in the foot with 2k, in a way; It was so good that it's still a viable OS today.

XP was merely an incremental improvement. In fact, in a corporate environment, it was a bigger hassle to work with than 2k was. Why everyone upgraded is remincent of lemmings.

Re: Corporate America Not Ready For Vista (1)

RollingThunder (88952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17085010)

The only thing I found in XP that wasn't in 2K, and which drove me to upgrade my work laptop, was mixed-resolutions on multiple monitors. Under 2K, even with the special ATI drivers, I couldn't have different resolutions on the laptop screen and on the external monitor. Given that the internal could only do 1024x768, that really sucked.

Re: Corporate America Not Ready For Vista (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084722)

How's that different from Win2K and WinXP?

Win2K was worth it, and WinXP was such a small upgrade that, you could tell it to use the "Windows Classic" theme and no one would know the difference.

From the Captain Obvious department (3, Insightful)

ScrewMaster (602015) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084358)

The article notes that the need to upgrade hardware "could... mean that organizations will hold off upgrading to Windows Vista until their next hardware refresh."

Well ... duh.

Re:From the Captain Obvious department (4, Insightful)

aj50 (789101) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084480)

This is exactly the point the article is missing.

Vista needs to be out now, so that next time people roll round to a hardware refresh, Vista is available.

Why do people seem to think that this is dumb?

Re:From the Captain Obvious department (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084554)

Yeah, you and me both, followed by a big yawn, but you have to remember that in the mind of Microsoft the release of a new OS defines the hardware upgrade cycle. It's the heat source behind the engine that drives the computer techonology economic "miracle."

If people start reacting to a major release with "Right, Bill. Blow me," the whole ediface starts to unravel, including Microsoft's ability to dictate to the hardware folk.

KFG

The same was declared when... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#17084380)

...ever a new version of Windows was released. Always the self-proclaimed experts with the "nobody wants it!" comments.

Yet each time we saw people and businesses scurry away to their nearest PC dealer and upgrade for the Must Have new version.

It'll be exactly the same with Vista too.

I honestly can't think of any corporation... (2, Interesting)

Durrok (912509) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084384)

... that I have worked for that has changed operating systems on anything besides their servers except when they did a hardware "refresh" (read: PC broke). I know the company I work for is getting ready to start using Vista on their new PCs that they order when Microsoft stops letting HP put it on their PCs but until then it's XP.

Hell now that I think about it, I got rid of the last NT 4.0 machine just two months ago. Unless your corporation is very small you keep PCs around until they die or become so obsolete they can no longer run the programs you need them to. In this case we had an active directory upgrade so we had to get rid of all the NT 4.0 machines as they were no longer going to work with the upgrade.

Re:I honestly can't think of any corporation... (1)

WuphonsReach (684551) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084458)

Hell now that I think about it, I got rid of the last NT 4.0 machine just two months ago. Unless your corporation is very small you keep PCs around until they die or become so obsolete they can no longer run the programs you need them to. In this case we had an active directory upgrade so we had to get rid of all the NT 4.0 machines as they were no longer going to work with the upgrade.

Lucky you. I'm still trying to retire Win98 machines. Although, if things go well, we'll be done by next summer. Hopefully we can still buy WinXP by then.

(And small corporations are even more likely to keep things running until they break.)

Re:I honestly can't think of any corporation... (1)

Durrok (912509) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084492)

True, what I meant was the cost to replace an office of 6 PCs is a lot less then trying to replace the PCs in 92 stores, 6 DCs, and a corporate office with over 1k working in it.

Re:I honestly can't think of any corporation... (2, Informative)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084514)

The total cost is higher in your scenario but the cost per machine is much much lower.

Re:I honestly can't think of any corporation... (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084942)

Hell now that I think about it, I got rid of the last NT 4.0 machine just two months ago.

Legacy software had me installing Win98 around two months ago! Still have an NT4 machine - it lurks on the floor of my cube under a pile of 15" CRT monitors replaced by LCDs. It's a small place and we do a lot via X windows anyway, so old machines get their memory maxed out and a PCI card added to make them dual head. You can do a surprising amount with a 600MHz machine in linux - especially if you feed it 1GB of memory left over from retired hardware.

A lot of places will even have things like SparcStation 10's lurking in corners - I have one running and another as a cold spare until the day an emulator is good enough. Weird specialty print drivers that haven't been touched for a decade suck horribly - as do extended "standards" with unpadded 24 bit data streams and no documentaion without signing half million dollar deals.

Vista Premium? (2, Insightful)

trimbo (127919) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084392)

"94% of corporate PCs are not ready for Vista Premium Edition"

This analysis must be right, because there is no Vista Premium Edition. Outside of Home editions, there's only Business and Ultimate.

I've been running Business and Ultimate for a while, on machines with 512M-2G of RAM, and haven't had issues on any configuration. I install it because I'm a chronic early adopter and because I work for a software company.

Anyway, like home users, businesses will upgrade as they buy more machines that have Vista pre-installed. No new news here.

J. Random CIO's thoughts: (4, Insightful)

paeanblack (191171) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084410)

1) My users are finally getting comfortable with XP.

2) My staff doesn't need the hassles of a mixed environment right now.

3) I'm not seeing what Vista will actually *do* for me over XP.

4) I don't the the budget headroom for an off-cycle hardware overhaul.

5) I'm unwilling to perform the carnal acts necessary to get that extra funding.

6) I'm not deploying another MS OS before the first service pack.

Re:J. Random CIO's thoughts: (1)

MtViewGuy (197597) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084510)

Actually, a lot of corporations have yet to upgrade from Windows 2000 Professional, for gosh sakes! Windows 2000 Professional is still a pretty good OS for business environments, though there's a chance we could see a movement towards a good Linux distribution that can be used in corporate environments (e.g., SuSE, Ubuntu, Fedora Core, and so on).

Re:J. Random CIO's thoughts: (3, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084666)

3) I'm not seeing what Vista will actually *do* for me over XP.
Bitlocker for laptops
Better power management via group policy for desktops, just to name two biggies
5) I'm unwilling to perform the carnal acts necessary to get that extra funding.
Unless you need hardware upgrades there likely won't be a funding need since the upgrade is likely covered under your SA agreement.
6) I'm not deploying another MS OS before the first service pack.
This one if completely legit =)

Re:J. Hasaclue CIO responds: (2, Interesting)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084822)

(I am not saying the OP does not have a clue. We are in agreement here, at least to some degree, from what I can see. I'm just adding the next logical step in the analysis.)

1) My users are finally getting comfortable with XP.
That is a lot like getting comfortable with a thorn in your foot. It is not comfort; merely numbness.

2) My staff doesn't need the hassles of a mixed environment right now.
They are going to have to switch to Linux at some point. There is no time like the present to start the process.

3) I'm not seeing what Vista will actually *do* for me over XP.
Why, it will run the very latest spyware and viruses, of course :-) It will make us allow us to pay heaps of money for newer versions of software just because M$ wants our cash.

4) I don't the the budget headroom for an off-cycle hardware overhaul.
Even with the budget, why waste the money? Switch to Linux. Lower TCO. No need to waste money on new hardware.

5) I'm unwilling to perform the carnal acts necessary to get that extra funding.
Clearly your CEO is not a hot babe :-)

6) I'm not deploying another MS OS before the first service pack.
We are not deploying another Windows O.S. ever. We would have to be fools to move to Vista rather than Linux!

Irrelevant (2, Informative)

plasmana (984377) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084412)

Large/medium sized corporations rarely "upgrade" their workstations. They roll out new hardware periodically. I imagine that most will roll them out as Vista PC's.

Re:Irrelevant (1)

Spruitje (15331) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084502)

Well, some companies still buy Windows 2000 workstation with their new PC's.
They haven't switched to XP yet.
And a lot of companies is thinking about switching to thin clients.

Re:Irrelevant (1)

plasmana (984377) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084576)

I wouldn't disagree with you at all, but this is just business as usual for a Windows rollout. Microsoft has to put a stake in the ground somewhere for the next version of Windows. I seriously doubt they expect the IT community to say "Whoa! New Windows!!! Gotta upgrade NOW!!!!" A gradual migration will slowly start trickling in.

Re:Irrelevant (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084640)

Exactly our situation here. (Fortune 200, 10,000 employees)

All computers (I just got one from HP) are reimaged with win2k pro. I'm sure it came with XP.

What about... (5, Funny)

postmortem (906676) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084414)

Corporate Africa? Are they ready?

Dupe? (1)

Frankie70 (803801) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084416)

Dupe [slashdot.org] .

Is this like a daily feature?

Re:Dupe? (1)

ewl1217 (922107) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084518)

Yes it is. You must be new here...

Spend $ on Vista, or on necessities? My choice. (3, Insightful)

lancejjj (924211) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084466)

Upgrading to Vista from our current XP standard is a non-starter. There is no way that I'm interested in upsetting my worker's day-to-day productivity by having a desktop admin perform an upgrade. If my employees cost me $500/day each (with salary, benefits, and per-employee expenses such as office space), and they lose a day's worth of productivity, then upgrading to Vista is an extreme waste of money (since I don't see any benefit).

I'm sure I'll start to move to Vista once I start procuring new hardware. But I have good equipment now. The benefit of brand new Desktop PC's for my people isn't clear at all to me. I'll replace my old equipment once it makes sense to do so, but I'm not going to drop $2000 on a new desktop until I can see a clear benefit in doing so. I'd rather allocate that money to something that can make a real difference to operations (like bonuses).

Maybe I'll see a Vista productivity benefit in six months - or maybe in two years. But right now, I say "no way" to an upgrade - it looks like a money sink to me.

Re:Spend $ on Vista, or on necessities? My choice. (2, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084548)

$2000 desktops? Good lord.

Few organizations are going to go and re-image every computer with Vista. What's going to happen is that every company of significant size that regularly purchaes machines from a large vendor is going to start getting Vista LICENSES shipped to them with their regular purchases of hardware. Your large-organization IT staff is going to keep deploying the standard image while stockpiling Vista licenses and working on the "when the suits are ready" Vista image.

And, those $500 Dells that big organizations give to their employees - they're all quite up to snuff for running Vista. Optiplex 6xx series desktops have been good to go with Vista for while a while.

Oh, sure, some organizations might never move to Vista, but they're going to be buying Vista licences (and Office 2007 licenses) when they buy their machines. That's the nature of the beast for people far enough up the ladder to be VLA/Select. It doesn't mean we'll deploy them - but we're sure going to be buying those licenses.

Our standard will remain XP for the next, oh, two years. Then we'll start delivering new machines with Vista, and making an effort to retire any Windows 2000 machines still in service. Of course, we're still about 2% Windows 9x, but it takes time to change out 25,000 desktops running hundreds of different pieces of software at dozens of different facilities.

Re:Spend $ on Vista, or on necessities? My choice. (1)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084596)

If your employees are losing an entire day to an upgrade then you need to fire your IT staff and hire some people capable of deploying software in general.

With a basic RIS setup and SMS you can have the machines upgraded including the new office and whatever custom apps you have in an hour completely unattended in the middle of the night. So your employees don't lose any work time and immediately can enjoy the advanced search capabilities so finding files is much much faster which saves your workers a measurable amount of time. In addition to this you have one search interface for email/files/music/web so they become familiar with one tool instead of trying to learn 4 different tools.

I wouldn't drop $2000 on a new desktop either unless I'm doing some video editing with it. You're right though, if you don't see a clear benefit then there is absolutely no need to upgrade. The new features won't help everyone but at least in my organization the advanced remote management and diagnostic tools will save me tons of man hours and the granular group policy changes will help me make sure systems are locked down properly saving me tons of time during my next security audit.

Of course I haven't deployed Vista yet and I won't until it's hardware refresh time but there are very real reasons some may do so. For now I'm focusing on growing the network infrastructure since the company is small enough that I can put a certain level of trust in my users. When the next refresh comes around I will remove the chance and move on to my next project relying on the content management system to ease the file search nightmare.

Re:Spend $ on Vista, or on necessities? My choice. (1)

Tsagadai (922574) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084950)

As someone who has done corporate programming I can assure you work will be lost when anything is upgraded. People will waste time playing with whatever was added. Vista would be an easy week on the go slow.

Re:Spend $ on Vista, or on necessities? My choice. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17084630)

If your desktop admin had or knew how to use readily available tools, you could upgrade hundreds at a time (limit of network and temp storage for personal settings) with no physical contact with the user or the actual PC hardware.

A few years ago, we upgraded over 500 users from W2K to XP in three nights with 3 techs. The users had all of their personal settings (desktop layout, resolution settings, outlook toolbars and signature, MS word toolbars, printers, icons, and applications etc..). Scripts, scripts and more scripts along with some MS and third party software make it possible. Have your desktop engineer test and get everything ironed out and the rollout will go smooth and quick.

Just last week we did about 500 people from MS Office 2000 to 2003 (yeah, Office 2003 is already dated) in two nights and we have a LOT of customizations and third part office addons (Hummingbird Document Mangement system, Softwise suite, document scrubing tools etc.. Very few problems.

Re:Spend $ on Vista, or on necessities? My choice. (1)

gordgekko (574109) | more than 7 years ago | (#17085020)

but I'm not going to drop $2000 on a new desktop until I can see a clear benefit in doing so.
Dude, we're talking about upgrading to Vista, not the latest version of OS X.

TCO is waaaay out of line. (3, Interesting)

pair-a-noyd (594371) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084512)

The OS itself is priced way out of line but then when you factor in all new hardware, it's insane.
I've talked to several customers of mine and many of them just bought new machines in the last 18 months.
They have no intentions of replacing them all over again just to run this new OS that's not all that revolutionary.
I'll bet that's the general consensus. In general of course.

well, duh (1)

delong (125205) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084528)

Why is this even news to us? Of course current computers aren't ready for Vista. That's the selling point for OEMs. It's part of the endless upgrade cycle that keeps the OEMs in business.

The statistics here are misleading. (1)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084534)

Generally a business doesn't really need EVERY computer to be top of the line. It'll be perfectly fine to have a handful of low-end computers at a workspace, especially if they can only run basic programs like Word or Excel. (less distractions)

This is like going into a public school's third-grade class and lamenting on how many of the students will be passing Calculus on their first attempt, many years later.

A far more accurate statistic would be how many businesses can afford to have at least one computer running Vista. Then you'd get a much more accurate assessment of how well it will do in the marketplace, and how much of a splash it will have in the business world.

Some people are happy about this, I am sure. (2, Interesting)

elgee (308600) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084536)

The Linux crowd for instance. If this doesn't drive more companies to Linux, I am not sure what will.

Re:Some people are happy about this, I am sure. (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084906)

If this doesn't drive more companies to Linux, I am not sure what will.

For my business:

1. Applications, applications, applications

2. Developer tools that are as easy to use and functional as Visual Studio 6.0

3. The ability to administer and fix a machine without having 20 years worth of Unix experience.

4. A sane release schedule (not every 6 months).

5. Complete and seamless ability to integrate with Windows.

6. Reasonable pricing.

7. Some kind of liability insurance.

8. Distributions that work with as much hardware as Windows currently does.

... and that's off the top of my head

Not where I work....yet (2, Interesting)

Nordrick Framelhamme (707613) | more than 6 years ago | (#17084592)

I know my employer won't be upgrading any time soon. In fact the main reason we are using XP is because the hardware supplier we use switched to a chipset that did not include drivers for NT.

As we are looking at moving to a 3 year rollover on hardware most of the hardware will not be Vista ready for at least the next two years, by which times there will be at least 2 service packs and numerous packs for the inevitable MSism in the OS.

Re:Not where I work....yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17084672)

If your company's employees need a three year hardware cycle to remain productive and of benefit to the company they should all be charged with embezzlement or blackmail. I'll let the DA decide on a case-by-case basis...

Lucent (1)

chill (34294) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084608)

Lucent (now Alcatel-Lucent) is in the middle of a hardware refresh. I still have a 5-year old laptop running Win2000. The current refresh will run thru about March 2007, when everyone has brand-new Thinkpads with WinXP.

Vista will, most likely, come with the NEXT hardware refresh -- 5 years down the road. Big companies don't give a damn what OS comes pre-loaded, because the first step on all new hardware is to install the approved image.

They shouldnt pumped it up with DRM stuff then (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084610)

At the behest of riaa members, universal and other crap, microsoft pumped vista with so much drm crapola that it hogs memory and cpu.

now, to appease 3-4 corporations, they will not be able to sell their own product to many of the world's corporations.

no corp. would like to upgrade their WHOLE pc infrastructure in order to run something that offers almost nothing new to the office, but loads of drm.

but will it run on my MacBook? (1)

adaminnj (712407) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084622)

I have not looked at anything Vista (well I just found this on youtube http://youtube.com/watch?v=d2gswXCAw_I [youtube.com] )

Viva la pingüino

Good news! (4, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084634)

Personally, I think the Vista requirements are insane for business machines. They are pretty stupid even for gaming machines. I have no idea how they are going to build Vista-ready laptops that actually get some hours of battery life. There is no need for these specs, except that MS needs to give users a ''new experience'' by any means necessary, since theri business model is fundamentally flawed.

What MS forgets, or has to ignore, is that a PC is a tool. A tool schould behave the same over a long time. You don't want a new ''experience'' every few years. You want to mater the tool once and then keep using it for a very long time. Hence you want it to work the same over a very long time.

This will prompt more people to look for alternatives to MSes greed and insanity.

Re:Good news! (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084980)

Wait... you just said that PC's are just a tool that should work consistently over a long period of time. I agree with you. Then you say, "This will prompt more people to look for alternatives to MSes greed and insanity." That doesn't make sense. All it does is make people not want to upgrade. They're certainly not going to go running to find a non-Windows product, because their Windows stuff is already working just fine, as is.
 
What you say would be true if MS was going to send some kind of "self-destruct" instruction to every Windows 2000 machine out there once Vista is released, which ain't gonna happen.

Next hardware refresh? (1)

rah1420 (234198) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084656)

Hell, our CIO has just slammed the brakes on hardware refreshes. Now instead of every three years it's every 4 years, and every machine gets a Win2K image on it.

When people start using Vista in droves, we'll be the ones that will be dribbling XP onto these boxen. But I don't see us making any quantum leaps to Vista.

Of course, I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.

LOL VISTA is crap (1, Interesting)

Archfeld (6757) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084674)

The very LARGE corporation I work for is still running more than 20K windows 2000 machines. We've found ZERO reason to upgrade to XP much less to consider Vista. The ONLY upgrades we've done is 2003 server on certain backend machines that can take advantage of the 64 bit architechture. For business XP and Vista are USELESS expenditures that provide nearly ZERO return for the dollar, while increasing operating costs by more than 20%.

Re:LOL VISTA is crap (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084868)

"For business XP and Vista are USELESS expenditures that provide nearly ZERO return for the dollar, while increasing operating costs by more than 20%."

I love the smell of made up numbers in the afternoon.

And I do not. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17085172)

What the hell's the difference between 2K and XP?

Don't give me technocrap spewed by Microsoft - tell me, what the hell is the difference? Where is it? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

The answer is, there isn't one.

2k has a web browser, office suite, calculator and e-mail.

XP has those things.

Vista has those things.

The only difference between the operating systems is they continually look more and more like a child designed the interface.

"Hey, let's spend $1500 on a computer that can run Vista, and $200 on Vista itself! That's $1800, so we can continue running all the software our employees need, like they.. already.. do."

The fact of the matter is, Vista does provide nothing in return for its cost.

"Premium Edition"? (4, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084692)

94% of corporate PCs are not ready for Vista Premium Edition

1. There is no such thing as a "Vista Premium Edition".
2. If they mean the closest -- "Vista Home Premium Edition", that's not supposed to be a common Vista edition for corporations.
3. Are these talking about meeting recommendations or requirements? I see few corporations being willing to run Aero Glass, and without that, you can easily get by with 512 MB or 1 GB RAM and no special graphics card to speak of (assuming it meets XP requirements).

Corporations aren't ready for democracy, freedom.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17084696)

Check out corporate wrongdoing here: http://malfy.org/ [malfy.org]

Why upgrade at all? (1)

ThisIsNotMyHandel (1013943) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084706)

Why would a company need to upgrade at all. PCs as of now, are able to do EVERYTHING that most companies need. Why do you need a faster CPU to do excell or word? It would be irresponsible for any company to upgrade to VISTA as it offers NO added functionality to the current windows OS in-terms of productivity. There is no reason for a hardware refresh in most cases. I can run most corporate SW on a P2 running xp with 256 ram. There is no need for dual core ect ect ect in the office. I am speaking in most cases.

The company I work for already has vista machines (1)

farker haiku (883529) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084728)

Granted, they are only RC1 (us tech support folks have to learn the ins and outs before we push it on the end users), but we've got several in the environment. We're looking at a major deployment in mid 2007. I mean, we've only got 65k end users, so we're not the largest kids on the block, but we're a chunk - and we're moving to vista, like it or not. We've also started to introduce some linux servers into the environment. Whee! I think we have 4 out of 2000 or so. But it's a start.

Which hardware refresh cycle would that be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17084742)

It kind of cracks me up that all of these analysts act as if corporate America operates on some sort of lunar cycle for updating hardware. The CEOs are all hanging out at the club, and they all decide, "Yep, it's been three years since ALL of us upgraded our hardware. We'd better all go down to the mall and buy a few million more machines now."

Seriously though, I do wonder if many companies gave up on waiting for Vista, and have been replacing older hardware for non-OS reasons. We tend to think of all hardware replacements as being driven by OS upgrades, but there are plenty of other reasons companies need to upgrade hardware. It could be that because so many business apps are web-based now, Microsoft's ability to turn OS upgrades into a major event may be fading.

well you see folks... this is why: (1)

toby (759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084750)

It's so handy to be able to DeActivate your XP license at will...

A.k.a. "subscription" model, or as Al Capone might be paraphrased, "you get a lot further with a new product and a dead license for the old one, than just a new product."

This is weird. (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084830)

I'm so used to seeing the phrase "not ready" after the word "Vista" I had to read the headline twice to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding the story.

Sigh...and yawn (0, Flamebait)

gordgekko (574109) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084910)

Wow, another day, another Slashdot "article" sniping at Microsoft and Vista. This is getting very tiresome. I'll bet there are more people running Vista already than Linux.

Not ready? (1)

LainTouko (926420) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084992)

Seems to me Corporate America is perfectly ready for Vista. It's just going to mostly ignore it for now. That works. It's not as if the release of Vista destroys all other currently working operating systems or anything.

Think forward compatibility (1)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17084996)

Bet you wish you have gone for the Cray laptop now.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>