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!

Vista — CIOs' First Impressions

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the don't-trust-but-verify dept.

Microsoft 99

lizzyben writes "Baseline magazine recently interviewed CIOs and IT consultants to get their take on Microsoft's Vista and is reporting that 'Most big companies will wait at least a year before deploying Vista to make sure the operating system is stable and that third-party applications work well with it, the beta testers say.'"

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

WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (4, Interesting)

metalcup (897029) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111228)

'Most big companies will wait at least a year before deploying Vista to make sure the operating system is stable and that third-party applications work well with it,
How long did most companies wait before deploying Win XP (or win 2000) after it was released? Is a one year wait 'normal' for IT across companies?

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17111262)

Most companies are expecting to deploy WinXP this spring.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (5, Funny)

dc29A (636871) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111556)

Most companies are expecting to deploy WinXP this spring.

What crackpot moderator tagged this funny? I work for a medium size bank and we are deploying XP right now. It should be finished by early March.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (2, Insightful)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111890)

I think five years is over-egging the pudding somewhat. Still, for these huge banks it must be difficult to roll it out worldwide. Surely that's the issue, rather than waiting to see if it's matured (I think it's gone a bit off now)

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17112458)

We see lots of NT4 and Win2k at my bank.

Any time we see an XP desktop, we're usually advised that something on that desktop doesn't work quite right - Word documents look funny or Commercial Program X goes hinkey. XP isn't perceived as being a good thing for the enterprise.

NT4 and Win2k will be around for a long time to come. I don't ever see there being a rollout of XP. Vista, if there is ever a Vista rollout, is a good number of years away, maybe a decade. We see lots of hardware upgrades and new machines, but the OS hardly ever gets touched. Microsoft has got quite the obstacle to overcome getting the larger businesses to upgrade.

Besides, the main focus OS-wise isn't on the desktops, but on the servers and the databases.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17112508)

About two years ago I helped a major bank replace the token ring network in its corporate offices with ethernet. The best part was trying to install new ethernet cards in desktops and notebooks ranging from Win98 to NT to 2000. The lucky people got a 2000 desktop to perform an install on -- the unlucky ones got NT laptops. I ended up opening up a really old Win95 box, installing the ethernet card, then realizing that it didn't have a CD drive in it so I could use my handy driver CD.

Banks are NOT known for updating their systems until they absolutely *have* to. And even then...

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

LordSnooty (853791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112692)

Banks are NOT known for updating their systems until they absolutely *have* to. And even then...
Since support for 9x/NT ended some time ago, and W2K support is not long for this world (non-critical fixes are already dead), I'd say that now is a time they "have to".

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17112822)

W2K support is not long for this world

W2K is supported until 2011 for security fixes. Frankly, that's all you need microsoft for. Other bugs can be dealth with at the application level.

W2k is well-known, well-documented, and well-understood, which is why it still has a large installed base in the business world (including my company).

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (2, Informative)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112846)

OK, so support has ended for NT. But from the perspective of a large, conservative organisation like a bank, that's not necessarily the end of the world.

Will the desktops magically stop working? No.

Does a migration solve any existing problems which they haven't already solved somehow? Probably not.

What is the risk of sticking with NT 4 on the desktop? No more security updates.

How does that represent a risk? Well, with a reasonably carefully designed network with internal firewalls as well as perimeter ones - probably not a great deal. (Bear in mind that 95% of organisations don't worry that much about internal threats, despite evidence to suggest that they should).

What work is involved in migrating? Checking every application used across the whole company works, and updating/replacing those which don't. Reimaging (and almost certainly replacing) every workstation.

How much would this cost? Hundreds of thousands in man-hours.

Cost/benefit wise, I can see how it would be hard to justify such a project.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

wizzard2k (979669) | more than 7 years ago | (#17114112)

How does that represent a risk? Well, with a reasonably carefully designed network with internal firewalls as well as perimeter ones - probably not a great deal. (Bear in mind that 95% of organisations don't worry that much about internal threats, despite evidence to suggest that they should).

You can only segment your network so much. At a certain point, spyware on one computer can be damaging in a security "critical" environment. (Obviously if security were the most important thing, the device would not be networked.)
Companies are now turning towards IPS systems (like 3com's TippingPoint IPS [tippingpoint.com] ) to detect and handle internal threats. With all the news about data theft, and employees losing laptops with sensitive data, I think its the duty of the company to ensure that data is well protected on an individual level, dont you?

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116794)

Any corporation which needs real security has two, physically separate networks. One for Internet access and one for the internal network. These are entirely separate, and no contact is allowed between them. No matter how insecure the internal machines are, no spyware can phone home. A stray virus can do damage, but that's what backups are for (and, of course, the employee who put external media into the internal network without putting them through the antivirus machine (which is physically separate from both networks) first will be expecting disciplinary action.

I've worked in an environment like this. It took some getting used to, but it did seem to work. I believe that they did have one route out from the Internal network; email could travel out via the mail server, but this was not allowed to make any connections to the Internal network.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

blugu64 (633729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17114988)

Irregardless of all of your points which make perfect sence, I present to you the answer. Vendor Support means that if something breaks it's not $PERSONS fault.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116512)

Breakage caused by massive change is substantially more likely than breakage caused by no change, and also likely to be more expensive.

And the person who signs off that change will be internal, not an outside vendor.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (2, Insightful)

blugu64 (633729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116708)

Yes your absolutely right it's much more probable that massive change will break stuff.

Yes the person who signs off on it would be internal.

But that's not what runs through business-types heads. They are thinking that if it breaks at all then they are in trouble, where as if it breaks with a currently supported hardware/software then they have someone to call, even if vender support can't do anything.

Yes it's illogical, no it makes little to no sence. I agree that just sticking with what works is usually the most inexpensive, and best choice.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

Bender0x7D1 (536254) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120410)

They are thinking that if it breaks at all then they are in trouble, where as if it breaks with a currently supported hardware/software then they have someone to call, even if vender support can't do anything.

I disagree with your underlying premise: No one would want to actually fix the problem.

Imagine that you are responsible for a large financial network that handles billions of dollars every day. Now, if there is a new vulnerability discovered, do you want someone to whine to, blame and cover your ass, or do you want to fix the problem? Yes, there are some people who want think CYA. Others, who are paid very well for actually getting stuff done, want to do something. If it is third-party software, if you want to fix the problem, you have to work with the vender. However, if the vendor has warned you that support will end, there is now no way to fix the problem. This could lead you to a risky upgrade, ON YOUR OWN TERMS, instead of having a critical vulnerability and having to rush through the upgrade.

Yes it's illogical, no it makes little to no sence. I agree that just sticking with what works is usually the most inexpensive, and best choice.

It all depends on the situation. Sometimes sticking with what works will cost more and, even if it is cheaper, isn't the best choice. In the financial case, weigh the risk of a controlled problem as compared to the risk of an unfixable vulnerability that doesn't have a workaround. If there are billions at risk every day, you can't gamble on no critical vulnerabilities showing up.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17112930)

Don't bet on it.

My lot were running key applications on old 486s in 1999, and a critical gateway on a machine so old the monitor was a collectible on Ebay. No exaggeration. If it wasn't for y2k, we might have upgraded to a Pentium by now, but you never know.

Funniest was when the network folks came around in '98, hellbent on upgrading everything to the latest protocols. They spent hours going insane trying upgrade our pc's until I told them that I had to have everything working perfectly in 2 hours & we had no backups of the hard drive contents. The looks on the their faces was priceless.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

empaler (130732) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120458)

*duh*
Upgrades cost money
Bankers are jews

(What? My richest friend is a Jew. Stereotype != wrong)

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115024)

Sprint (cell provider) just started rolling out XP as their standard platform when I quit last May

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17111968)

Hell, one of our clients (a one of the larger UK based finance companies) has just put back it's head-office upgrade again. They are still on NT4+IE55 and are officially likely to be for at least another six months (unofficially, I don't think it'll happen at all, ever, unless their outsourced IT people simply start refusing to maintain the older systems, which will be a long time coming as they make their money whether or not an upgrade happens). Funfunfun.

While most of the people we deal with are 2K/XP for the most part, it isn't unusual to see NT4 and I know of at least one other company that is mainly NT4 on the desktop.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

cloricus (691063) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112904)

Indeed; It's only in the last year that at work we have standardised to WinXP and even now we still have a big chunk of 2k boxes, two or three 98se, and an NT box in some dusty room some where. I don't expect Vista to start coming in until our vendors start forcing it on new replacement pc's and considering we only just finished our roll over that may be a good long while. Oh and half of our apps work better under Linux (using WINE) than with Vista so that will have to change. :P

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122408)

I still deal with on a regular basis (twice this week so far) with WinNT4 machines on people's desks, and we "standardized" to WinXP over 2 years ago. Sometimes that shit just hangs around forever, y'know?

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112136)

but that still doesn't tell us what most companies are doing. maybe it was a legitimate joke.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112562)

It is taking you till March to deploy XP?? Mabye I am missing something but what all are you doing? It doesnt seem like it would take that long to deploy XP. Ive done it in a week for medium size businesses. Not trolling I am just curious as to what all you are doing that is taking it so long.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

snoyberg (787126) | more than 7 years ago | (#17113262)

Medium-sized? I work for one of the biggest insurance companies in the country and we're struggling to implement XP here. Most people really do miss Win2k

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

sweatyboatman (457800) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115638)

it's funny...

because it's true!

ah me!

Hey Slashdot, can we stop seeing stories about how nobody's going to use Vista, please? Seriously, we get the idea.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

Reapman (740286) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112970)

That isn't funny, I seriously doubt we'll have XP rolled out on all 2600 desktops here before Spring. I know of several companies that are just starting now. It's not uncommon to wait for everyone else to find it's faults, and at least a Service Pack or two.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17111282)

I know of one major UK ISP that still has NT4 as standard on their call centre machines and I suspect they're not alone. If it works, and you can still get support for it, why change?

As long as... (1)

Phil John (576633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111444)

As long as those are internal machines on a closed network, then yes, stay with what works.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (2, Interesting)

will_die (586523) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111490)

At the place I use to work at they did install XP until end of 2004.
Current place is planning on doing Office 2007 within a few months however vista will probably be a year plus, and that was with microsoft sending people out here and talking to managers.
While personally I cannot wait for Office 2007, new toys, I am not looking forward to vista for both work or personnal use.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115318)

While personally I cannot wait for Office 2007, new toys, I am not looking forward to vista for both work or personnal use.

Now see, personally I prefer office 97 so long as I'm not on a system with multiple monitors where O97 screws up, but I am looking forward to Vista for work. Not at home - I'm all-Linux there now. But I must run Windows at work (or OSX, but I've found I prefer Windows to be honest) and I would like some of the new and fun crap in vista to be on my system.

Why don't you want vista for work? Or do you have your own business? I know if I did, mine would be all-linux. I think if you start that way it's all good, whereas if you try to migrate from windows your life is hard.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (5, Informative)

redstar427 (81679) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111628)

My Company waited 18 months before we deployed Windows XP, and mostly just on new computers. There were many bugs in XP's initial release, plus it took approximately a year before all of our key applications officially supported XP.

We normally wait until after the first service pack anyway, since Microsoft has a history of releasing too soon.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17111762)

We normally wait until after the first service pack anyway, since Microsoft has a history of releasing too soon.

You think Vista released too soon? Steve Ballmer will be a happy man to read your post.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111862)

Most companies use their existing system until they see a compelling need to upgrade. Because a migration always costs money.
So it is not unusual at all if a company is a few years behind. I remember working on a Windows 3.x application in 1998/1999, because the customer's IT was still running on that version.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (2, Insightful)

jackharrer (972403) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111938)

Mitchells and Butlers in UK (very big hospitality corp) still uses Win 3.11. In 2006, on 386 and 486 class computers.
And they will not stop because it costs money. And do you have any idea how hard is to update Excel spreadsheets with a lot of version specific scripting? Plus their system is quite complicated and heavily networked.

That's true for many companies. Don't fix it if it ain't broken.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

AlXtreme (223728) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112658)

That's true for many companies. Don't fix it if it ain't broken.
The problem then becomes: if it breaks, how do you fix it?

What if one of those 386's breaks down? It's not like you can run down the store and buy a replacement CPU or RAM. Somehow they'll have to upgrade in the future, if only because of the lack of available spare parts. Incrementally upgrading might be painful, but not upgrading at all might be many times more costly when stuff starts to break.

Think about all the COBOL in the world. Nowadays it's next to impossible to find someone who willingly does COBOL (rightfully so, I might add). Maintaining one of those programs eventually becomes more costly than rewritting the bugger.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116866)

What if one of those 386's breaks down? It's not like you can run down the store and buy a replacement CPU or RAM. Somehow they'll have to upgrade in the future, if only because of the lack of available spare parts. Incrementally upgrading might be painful, but not upgrading at all might be many times more costly when stuff starts to break.


As long as you don't need more than 640x480 16-colors, Win 3.1 runs just fine on modern hardware. You'll need to provide a more modern DOS if you want to use large hard drives, but the DOS that comes with Win98SE does just fine for that, as do a number of third-party DOSs.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116962)

They are one of the few organisations who could easily migrate to Linux/BSD/Solaris. Wabi supported Win16 very well, and WINE has pretty much full support now. They could keep their existing apps quite easily and move to a more stable platform. Moving from Win32 is a lot harder.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

tkdog (889567) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111876)

Wow - now we see the real reason OS X doesn't gain business share!

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

zootm (850416) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111908)

My company switched to XP (I think, it was before my time) in 2004, which is about 3 years since its initial release, and we're a development firm. A lot of places take stability very seriously, and even those which don't are usually at least cautious. A year sounds pretty reasonable as an average.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (4, Informative)

tero (39203) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112048)

I worked for a fairly large automotive company (you'd know the name).

We started XP deployment for the IT units around March -06 and it's probably just about finished now and moving on to the other parts of the corporation (and ends around next summer I'd guess, not working there anymore).

Will be a long long time before Vista hits their user desktops (probably around 2010, give or take few years), deploying tens of thousands of desktops throughout megacorps is not anything you want to do every year.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

LehiNephi (695428) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112106)

I work for a large energy company (you'd definitely know the name, and probably hate us)

We just rolled out WinXP last year (2005) as a replacement for NT4. That's...what, four years after WinXP came out? So I'd expect our company to move to Vista sometime in 2010 or 2011.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

Calinous (985536) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112160)

I would expect your company to move to Windows 2010 sometime in 2015 (as from NT4 to XP there was another version, the Win2000). I wonder what new and nice things will Microsoft put into the next version of its OS in order to attract users... WindowsFS? DirectX 12?

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

jarod670 (667823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112340)

My company just deployed Windows XP in this past year. Of course we just finished our Windows 2000 upgrade a year ago. We do plan to go to Vista within the year. I work for a hospital, once we get our main vendor (Epic) to support IE7 we will be starting the migration.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

Unlucke (1026008) | more than 7 years ago | (#17113318)

I think it mostly depends on the companies computers they currently have in use. The university's athletic department I work for have both XP and 2000 implemented. The computers we have running on 2000 are mostly Dell OptiPlex GX110's that we have setup for the different sports' assistant coaches (we had OptiPlex GX1's, but transitioned them out). Even though the GX110's are still operable, most aren't capable of running XP (we do have a some running XP, but they have memory and hard drive upgrades). The ones running XP are the new/newer OptiPlex GX150/250/260/620/etc., Latitude C640, and assorted Inspirons we have assigned to the head coaches, assistant coaches for the major sports (ie- basketball, mens/womens basketball, etc.), and staff. I don't know if this is similar to what other companies' IT have, but then again, they may.

(sorry for the wall o' text)

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

Some_Llama (763766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17121360)

Well I was using Win98SE until about 2002/2003 a little bit before SP2 came out... also around the same time that companies started using XP migrating from Windows 2000... i think it is SOP to wait until at least the first SP before trying an MS deployment, we have enough trouble keeping up with help tickets to be test driving a new MS OS...

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

mpaque (655244) | more than 7 years ago | (#17124590)

The Federal Department of Health and Human Services finished rolling out Windows 2000 in 2004, and is in the process of rolling out Windows XP. It takes longer than you'd think to get hardware software and designated desktop and laptop configurations for various programs all spec'd and tested.

Being a vast centrally administered IT bureaucracy doesn't speed things up, either. When the regional Head Start office in San Francisco needs a change in machine configuration to support an older worker, the request has to be processed through Washington, DC. That can take a while. (21 months in that case, to permit a visual aid utility to be added to the worker's assigned configuration.)

A one year wait is downright snappy.

Re:WinXP/2K 'incubation'? (1)

HalAtWork (926717) | more than 7 years ago | (#17128604)

I work for a very large multinational corporation (almost 10,000 employees) and they are still using NT4 + Win2k and some QNX, and haven't planned on rolling out Windows XP. There were issues with Licensing 6.0, not to mention the fact that if they bought a newer version of Windows chances are it wouldn't work on the older hardware, and if they bought newer hardware they would already come with the updated Windows licenses. So far there is no need for Windows XP, let alone Vista.

if you're waiting for vista to be stable or secure (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17111238)

you'll be waiting a lot more than a year

my firm's Win2k is at SP4 and still isn't

Re:if you're waiting for vista to be stable or sec (3, Funny)

ellem (147712) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111288)

I said for a long time, "No, no, Y2K was fine it was Win2K we had all the trouble with."

Re:if you're waiting for vista to be stable or sec (2, Funny)

schnooka_boy (1023007) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111396)

What do you mean Win2k isn't secure? It's perfectly secure so long as you don't connect it to any sort of network.

Re:if you're waiting for vista to be stable or sec (1)

Timex (11710) | more than 7 years ago | (#17119206)

What do you mean Win2k isn't secure? It's perfectly secure so long as you don't connect it to any sort of network.
That's similar to what has been said about WinNT: It's perfectly secure... ...until you remove the shrink wrap from its package.

Re:if you're waiting for vista to be stable or sec (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111972)

was it intentional that you didn't finish your sentence while talking about the reliability of win2k?

MY opinion goes like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17111422)

I'd rather install Vista on the PC's of our competitors, their wives', their childrens' and the pets' of their children.

For FREE!

Because I'm such a nice person.

hehe (0, Offtopic)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111456)

This must be the most informative /. post. Ever.

response (2, Insightful)

erbbysam (964606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111502)

I do believe that the correct CEO response on the phone is going to be:
"this is going to cost us how much per user? it's more secure? seriously? what about xyz? it works with that? o really? have you tested it yourself? your an employee at Microsoft and you haven't had a chance to use it yourself? call me back in a year"

Re:response (4, Insightful)

Anml4ixoye (264762) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111978)

your an employee at Microsoft and you haven't had a chance to use it yourself?


I am an employee at Microsoft, and you better darn believe that they push us hard to make sure we are running Vista. A lot of people have been running it since early alphas, providing a lot of feedback.

I'm a field engineer, so I spend most of my time on site at large customers. A lot of them are excited by the features in it - just like they are excited about the features in .NET 2.0 (and 3.0), VS 2005, etc. I've also worked for shops where we were excited about the latest version of Eclipse, Java 5, Ruby on Rails, etc.

People aren't switching because they don't want to. They aren't switching right now because large companies have lengthy install processes that force things to take a long time. It doesn't matter if it's Windows, Linux, Eclipse, Visual Studio, or a host of other things. I'm sure we can find people running solidly on 2.2 kernels, with not a lot of inkling of jumping to 2.6.

It's just the way big businesses operate, and is generally independent of the actual software being discussed. It's a shame that it always seems to get spun that way.

Re:response (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17112710)

I am an employee at Microsoft, and you better darn believe that they push us hard to make sure we are running Vista. A lot of people have been running it since early alphas, providing a lot of feedback.

Yeah, but you guys are all millionaires. You can afford to run Vista.

Re:response (1)

neoform (551705) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112820)

Perhaps it's both? Big Business-Slowness and that Vista just isn't something they feel the need to jump at?

Re:response (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17113274)

It's just the way big businesses operate, and is generally independent of the actual software being discussed. It's a shame that it always seems to get spun that way

I work in big business and I agree. I'm not keen on putting out Vista the day it comes out cause I have no particular reason to, I also don't plan on upgrading my Ubuntu to the lastest at the moment, nor do I have any reason to upgrade my FreeBSD box to the latest stable or unstable - it still runs exactly what I require it for.
 
Now I know this is Slashdot and cause I haven't jumped on the bandwagon this will be dumped into the land of -1 posts, but I feel pretty safe in saying that no matter what the OS, if you are jumping on installing it corporate wide on day 1, than you are a fool and should look into other work. Vista isn't getting installed everywhere not because it's MS or whatever nitpicking you have managed to pick out about it, Vista isn't getting installed everywhere this year, cause it's new and it's not a requirement for anything.

Re:response (1)

uradu (10768) | more than 7 years ago | (#17113568)

> [...] I spend most of my time on site at large customers. A lot of them are excited by the features in it

I'm really having a hard time understanding Microsoft's urgency to push it out to corporate customers first. In my experience (and reaffirmed by countless posts in this thread) large customers are practically never on the leading edge of new software, especially OS software. If anything, Microsoft should concentrate on consumers, they're usually the early adopters of the new and shiny. But what do I know...

Re:response (1)

Anml4ixoye (264762) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115360)

I don't speak for MS, just get a paycheck for them. But my guess is that most consumers get their OS's through whatever is installed on the computer when they buy it. And Vista is a small part of everything that just got released - new Office, new Team Systems, Source control, process management, communications - there is a crapload of stuff coming out, most of it targetted at, um, errr, [I don't want to say it...], enabling businesses. ;)

Re:response (1)

mabhatter654 (561290) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116666)

first, they are under Software Assurance and Microsoft wants to pretend to give them value for their money by giving it to them first. Realize the first companies to bite for SA on XP got NOTHING for their money then the 3 years ran out!

Second, big customers take a long time to roll out. Give them a 3 month head start!

Developers, Developers, Developers! If even one big fortune 500 moves to Vista first, that's dozens of high profile ISVs that have to release updates now. That's more apps "vista ready" on the market an on the shelves to buy. And more high profit Developer tools sold!!!

Finally, more people will update once they SEE the new thing at work.. again, they'll want a PC for home that can run work apps, and they'll look for a new PC with Vista because it's "comming soon" at work too.

Delusions abound (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17113800)

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but some of us really aren't switching because we don't want to. We write portable C++ here. You know the Visual Studio application the majority of our developers prefer to use? VC++ 6. You know, the ancient, pre-standard, poor-code-generating one. Why? Because we write portable C++. All the .net stuff in the world has zero value to us.

From our perspective, later VC++ versions have overall been one screw-up after another. The performance is abysmal; we don't care whether it's because they're written in .net, or because the architecture was changed to support all the other .net languages, we just see a UI that's slow to unresponsive way more than it ever used to be and a debugger that keeps screwing up when it used to be almost 100% reliable. We want help to show us the standard library calls and language rules, not a zillion .net-related buzzwords. We want the old source browsing features that just worked, not a new set of substandard not-quite-replacements that took three major releases to get and still can't do as much as we had in 1998.

It's not that there aren't good features in the more recent VS releases. Some of us even prefer to use those releases. But most of us don't, and it's got nothing to do with roll-out times and everything to do with the fact that they simply aren't as effective as tools that help us do our jobs. Please don't kid yourself that it's anything else.

We can and do take exactly the same view with operating systems. We will upgrade to Vista when there is some advantage in doing so. Right now, we run a heterogeneous network with many different versions of Windows, UNIX flavours, Linux, MacOS, etc. and it works. Based on our experiences upgrading OSes previously, changing desktops to a new version of Windows is risking a show-stopper for the entire development group until a patch to let our systems interoperate properly is released, which may take a considerable time and we can't control. No sane manager is going to authorise that, and again, it's not because we can't do it faster, it's because from bitter experience we just don't trust MS software to get it right until there's a lot of outside experience to say they have.

And it's the same deal with office suites, too. We could upgrade to Office 2007 pretty much as soon as it's released. We have sensible software management procedures in place, and global licensing arrangements with MS. But until we know we can open documents from older versions in 2007 and vice versa, which again was not the case with some previous upgrades causing us much pain, we aren't going to trust the upgrade. Even then, we're going to take some convincing that it's worth risking a hit for introducing the new UI, that there are new features to justify the upgrade (no point disrupting everyone for no benefit), etc.

Sorry to be such a downer, but I read some serious delusion in your post. People do avoid upgrading because the newer product is a risk and/or lacks obvious benefits, regardless of any delays caused by procedures in updating systems.

Re:Delusions abound (1)

t0rkm3 (666910) | more than 7 years ago | (#17114198)

To add to the above post:

Working in SAN, and NAS made me very twitchy about upgrading Winders. Service Packs included. You never know when a super-stealth change in the way scsi.sys and the registry confer about LUN references will be in the new SP.

With other OS's, if I have a question I can look at the /proc system, the dev tree, and the source comments and figure out any changes. With Winders I hunt around in the registry and find out what has changed... and then we have to figure out how 'Winders' wants us to change what we're doing to get the disks to line up the way we want to.

Tis a shitey way to behave.

Re:Delusions abound (1)

Anml4ixoye (264762) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115306)

Sorry to be such a downer, but I read some serious delusion in your post.


First, you aren't bursting my bubble. I came to MS as someone who never, ever, though they would go work for them. I run Linux on several home computers, write and speak about Ruby, have run JUGs and LUGs, etc.

I didn't mean to come across that everyone is all giddy and that the only reason they aren't upgrading is because of corporate policies. But I'm sure you all would like to use a lot of the new features - if it fit in your environment.

So I guess there is two things here - some people avoid upgrading just because they don't like change. Some avoid because it affects their bottom line, or doesn't provide the value. But, to extend further, I'm sure that you all take the same approach with any of your upgrades, not just Microsoft ones. I highly doubt (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that when Linus publishes 2.8, you all are going to just grab the bits and shove them on your machines. You'll test, you'll see what the community says, and you'll use all the proper precautions.

Which is ultimately my real point. Being cautious about upgrades is fun to bash on MS about, but any reasonable shop is going to do that for all of their tools and systems.

And, again, please don't get me wrong that I'm all lovey about MS. I might have a blue badge, but that doesn't cover my eyes to everything else going on out there.

Re:response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17115540)

"Field Engineer" is not a title belonging to a software company. Quit trying to make yourself sound more important. You're a guy who goes an does installations and at most make recommendations for implementation. That's it. Get over yourself.

Re:response (1)

KlomDark (6370) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115944)

Too bad VS2005 is flaky as hell under Vista. No way we're upgrading until at least SP1, and SP2 for VS2005, since SP1 for VS2005 will not have the needed tweaks to make it run right on Vista. And give us a real TFS merge tool while we're at it, the current one is a piece of trash that won't merge XML files. We just blew the last two days writing our own XML merging tool since the TFS merger could find no pattern beyond "They're both completely different".

Vista: The next PS3...

Re:response (1)

Anml4ixoye (264762) | more than 7 years ago | (#17117942)

Flaky? I haven't seen that, and I'd be happy to bring up whatever it is you are seeing with flakiness. The only thing I was aware of was I think around some of the debugging features.

As far as TFS merge - I'll look into that and put up some info on my site if I find out any more info.

Re:response (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116822)

Excited? Who is excited?? Most of us are going "Oh bugger, more c*rp from Microsoft".

backwards compatibility, at least for malware (1)

SgtChaireBourne (457691) | more than 7 years ago | (#17115014)

... it's more secure? seriously? ...

It depends on how you re-define secure. Even malware from 2004 [zdnet.co.uk] will still run.

What's wrong with this? (3, Insightful)

Jonah Hex (651948) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111708)

One security enhancement in Vista that may be complicated to use is BitLocker, which encrypts the contents of a hard drive so that a stolen laptop can't become a source of pilfered intellectual property. BitLocker's policy of looking for changes in a PC's Basic Input/Output System--the code run by a computer every time it's booted up--may occasionally activate the shutdown mechanism when it isn't needed; for instance, after a systems administrator has upgraded the hard drive. BitLocker "is a very good idea," says the University of Florida's Schmidt. "But it can be dangerous if you don't know what you're doing."
Let's see, you upgrade the hard drive and since the BIOS detects the hard drive has been changed you can no longer access the info on the hard drive. Man that BitLocker is amazing, who would of thought putting a completely different drive in the PC wouldn't let you access the same data! ;)

Jonah Hex

Re:What's wrong with this? (1)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112310)

"Changes in a PC's Basic Input/Output System" is not necessarily the same as a different drive in the PC. Possible scenario:
You do a BIOS upgrade of your mainboard to add support for a new processor version, because you want to upgrade. Vista detects the change and blocks access to your data ;-)

Re:What's wrong with this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17113734)

Ever dropped in a larger HD and made the original a slave to copy all of the data over?
Retard

Re:What's wrong with this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17112794)

I would assume "upgrading the hard drive" would entail copying the old hard drive's contents to a different drive with Ghost or something before attempting to run off the new drive.

Re:What's wrong with this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17112878)

Ghost. Now stop being a smartass.

Re:What's wrong with this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17116846)

During beta testing, bitlocker instructions included "printing out your password" so that you could store it in a safe place.

If you are trying to manage more than 20 or desktops or you have laptops with folks that travel - forget bitlocker... it'll only be a nightmare.

Large vs. small companies (2, Interesting)

Josh Lindenmuth (1029922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111826)

For larger companies, Vista and Office 2007 will probably be rolled out pretty early, at least to some divisions/groups. Microsoft typically makes upgrade licenses available very cheap (or free) for these organizations, and also uses other incentives/ploys to convince these organizations to upgrade. It's in Microsoft's best interest to get these companies to convert first to start the "trickle down" ball rolling, particularly when it comes to Office 2007.

As far as other companies are concerned, everyone is right - it could be 5 or 10 years before they upgrade. I'm the CIO of a small/medium business, and we are still running Windows 98 on some of our non-networked machines. Smaller companies won't invest a penny in upgrades until they're forced to do so, which won't be until Microsoft stops creating XP security updates, or until enough applications are released that only run on Vista.

Re:Large vs. small companies (4, Interesting)

tgd (2822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112008)

I think you have it backwards, just based on experience selling software into those sort of companies.

I've got a lot of customers who have a near zero cost going to Vista and Office 2007 as far as licensing is concerned, but they're all talking a year or more to do it and some are saying they may never switch. Why? Enormous retraining and help desk costs associated with the new ribbon UI in Office (which personally I *really* like), and the OS cost is minimal when compared to the new hardware cost and the cost of replacing hardware "in the field".

The place I personally have concern about Vista support very quickly is the exact opposite of what you said -- its the small companies. When you get below 20-30 people, most companies buy whatever computers they can get for the lowest price. They don't have enterprise licenses and will take whatever OS comes on that system... and those systems are going to come with Vista by default. My girlfriend, for example, works at a company of 50 people or so... and when they need a new PC, the IT guy goes down to Best Buy and gets whatever is on sale.

Our 2007 release planning is only targeting Vista for those very small customers (and as such, we're not spending much time looking at it or qualifying it on products that a small customer wouldn't use).

But you make an important point -- small companies (and a lot of big companies) NEVER upgrade OS's. They are still running Windows 98 on systems that haven't died or been replaced for functional reasons... and there's not many functional reasons to replace a 2ghz XP machine for a few years at least.

I agree (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17113680)

I own a ten person company, and it's exactly how you described it, with us. I'll leave whatever is working for as long as it works, but when it's time to buy a new machine, it's whatever Dell (or whoever) has for cheapest, and I'll take whatever Windows OS it comes with. Right now, if I need a new machine in the next 6 months or so, I *might* try a bit harder to get one with XP, but it's not a big deal. As long as it's Windows, I don't really care what it is. We *never* upgrade OS's, because the oldest we have in here right now is W2K, and that works just fine.

Re:Large vs. small companies (1)

ccp (127147) | more than 7 years ago | (#17137324)

They are still running Windows 98 on systems that haven't died or been replaced for functional reasons...

We have one still running Windows 95, you insensitive clod!

Cheers,
CC

Re:Large vs. small companies (4, Informative)

aadvancedGIR (959466) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112098)

Last year, I was working for GE (I think we could all agree it is a BIG company) and we were only moving from NT4 to 2K. BTW, we were allowed to keep two NT4 systems because of a couple of apps that weren't ported yet.

Big corps didn't abandon Win95/98 because they want shiny or powerfull stuff, they did because NT4 or 2K is easier to maintain when you have hundreds of desktops and every up-to-date commercial application run on them without much hassle. They may consider a switch to XP and some already did, but Vista is just too young to be taken seriously by a big corp.

Let alone large companies (4, Interesting)

rf0 (159958) | more than 7 years ago | (#17111828)

I've finally got a desktop setup that is resonably secure, works with all my applications and as long as I'm sensible about installing dogey software free from Viruses and adware all based on XP. There is nothing that attracts me to Vista though I'm sure I will get a free copy next time I buy a PC and I look forward to using that a coaster

Re:Let alone large companies (1)

powerlord (28156) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112380)

I agree. I've got a desktop that works and is secure enough for my use. XP seems fine for now.

Of course, I disagree with the later half of your statement. I'm positive that the next PC I buy will not come with a free copy of Vista.

It WILL however come with a free copy of OS X.

Re:Let alone large companies (1)

magarity (164372) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112850)

Vista though I'm sure I will get a free copy next time I buy a PC
 
Where did you hear anyone was handing out free copies of Vista with new PCs? China?

Not upgrading old machines (1)

majortom1981 (949402) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112094)

We have all pentium 4 3ghz with 1 gig of ram 160 gig harddrives an x600 gpus . here at the library all capable of running vista but we will not be upgrading. we have no need to. Any new computers we will get with vista though.

Re:Not upgrading old machines (1)

Hillgiant (916436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17113966)

What the hell is a library doing with that kind of hardware? I could see having big ram and processors if you are doing very heavy cataloging. But 160 gig hard drives? Most of the big files should be on servers. Fancy GPUs? What for? It's like some kind of Gates grant gone wrong.

Re:Not upgrading old machines (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122560)

I dunno about the CPUs, but I'm pretty sure the rest meet the specs of a fairly standard Dell Optiplex GX-280 from about 2-3 years ago. Not really all that strange.

Re:Not upgrading old machines (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122734)

Sorry, meant GPUs not CPUs. The 280's standard came with the IGP stuff, but the options for graphics on a 280 were:

  • ATI 128MB PCI-Express x16 (Dual VGA or DVI) Radeon X300
  • ATI 64MB PCI-Express x16 (DVI/TV-out) Radeon X300 SE
  • CyberLink PowerDVD 5
  • Intel 82915G/GV/910GL Express Chipset Family
  • Intel 915G Graphics Controller

University (1)

Machitis (597087) | more than 7 years ago | (#17112422)

I work in the IT department of a University. We probably won't start rolling out Vista until we have to, since we have things fairly stable right now and the re-training for some people complicates the issue. We have plans to get some Vista machines in the IT department purely for the reason of support for students and preparation for migration a year or more in the future.

Re:University (1)

jo42 (227475) | more than 7 years ago | (#17116924)

> We probably won't start rolling out Vista until we have to

Better be ready by next fall when all the freshmen show up with new laptops running Vista...

Re:University (1)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17122802)

Can't speak for the OP, but when I worked for a university, the support was "best effort". You bought your own hardware, then we'll help if we can, but don't feel obligated to go out of our way to fix anything that is a personal machine. University owned hardware we supported, but that's pretty standard.

CIOs' First Impression (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17113420)

"Oooh, Shiny!"

Why it can be complex (1)

plopez (54068) | more than 7 years ago | (#17114402)

Some posters are asking why it can take years for a rollout to occur so I thought I would share a few observations.

From what I have seen of large (Fortune 500) environments there are a number of reason why a roll out can take a loooonnnnnnngggg time:

1) Scale matters. The more equipment you have to update the longer it takes. Updating desktops for 50K + people can take a long time. In addition, it would probably be too expensive, both in overall cost and lost productivity, to update everyone at the same time.

2) Large institutions tend to be very conservative. They do not want to take risks, so they wait a few years for the technology to stabilize beofre upgrading.

3) Large institutions tend to be cheap. They look at hardware and software as capital investments and want to squeeze every penny out of them. WHy upgrade when everything works.

4) THis is related to point 1) but large environments have a hodge-podge of of equipment, software and protocols. You have not only various flavours of Windows but also various Unices (including Linux and BSD), mainframes (though these usually are not the problem), the odd Mac and even a VMS system or two.

5) Software integration also presents a challenge. Not just MS apps need to be tested and fixed as needed, but also 3rd party software such as SAP, supply chain managment software and sales force automation software. Not to mention a hodgepodge of homebrew applications. Also note that some of your sales force may be 'partners', i.e. independent contractors. They are not a part of your network but must integrate with it. The same is true of suppliers and customers. Throw in some offshoring or outsourcing just to make things a bit more fun.

It is a miracle that anything gets done at all.

Vista may be the last (1)

Cassini2 (956052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17124122)

Vista may be the last wide-scale operating system deployment ever. It requires so much work to regression test all of the in-house and external applications, that some companies may not bother. Instead, you can just use Virtualization, and run all the old applications on the old operating systems in a compatibility mode.

With virtualization, the application only needs to get tested on one operating system. No more O/S upgrades for all those specialized applications.

Re:Vista may be the last (1)

plopez (54068) | more than 7 years ago | (#17129652)

Good point. I wish I could mod you up.

Blackhats? (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 7 years ago | (#17114814)


Im curious: Where does this leave the blackhats? Are they going to unleash their work as soon as Vista hits the retail market, or are they going to wait until an appreciable number of enterprise environments have deployed it in order to maximize their damage and give Microsoft a black eye?

Personally, I am hoping they do the latter.

Would you upgrade servers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17116698)

For many - desktop management is witch-craft, a black art of guessing and second-guessing. Few companies have a very good handle on their desktop management. The largest companies typically being the worst offenders ....

If you are a top microsoft account - ask to review their Desktop Maturity Model. Finally Microsoft - and others - put some serious effort into how and why desktops are managed. If you are not a top account and will likely never see the report - simply consider that investments in how you manage and deploy software to desktops has a real impact on the how and when you move to Vista.

This is not to say that everyone should move to Vista now or in a year. I would say that most IT departments are playing a game of chicken with their desktops trying to avoid deployment costs rather than protecting their business. My money is on the fact that many IT managers grew up in a server environment and still haven'd adjusted to the laptop world. There is little benefit to upgrading a desktop machine until you need to. There are significant benefits to updating a laptop - if you can get your hands on it again... ;-)

Vista and Microsoft's sizeable investments into desktop management technologies do offer real good reasons to upgrade. The expansion of GPOs, new virtualization capabilities and a more secure platform are just some of the reasons. And let's all leave Aero for the home user for the next few years while the hardware catches up.

Discussing whether or not to upgrade to Vista before discussing the how your company uses and manages its computers (read laptops) is just plain short-sighted... and frankly "par for the course" in an industry where IT still thinks it is a server-oriented world and that desktops can be managed in the same way. The laptop is still only about 10 years old but its time IT stopped managing desktops/laptops like servers. Then and only then, can anyone have an intelligent conversation about moving to Vista. Rationalizing moves based on historical and frankly crappy decisions that leave 98 and 2000 on a desktop simply because it costs less to do so is plain dumb.

Consider where your revenues are actually earned - for most its on a desktop/laptop and should be properly maintained and updated.

My prediction / suggestion is that companies move to Vista in 1-2 years.

Not all will wait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17117194)

Telecommunications giant Ericsson will do a company-wide migration to Vista Q1 next year.

It's a Best Practice (1)

pkcs11 (529230) | more than 7 years ago | (#17120580)

Has nothing to do with Vista or MS. It's an industry Best Practice to wait about 12 months.
Quite a few large corporations wait until it's the only OEM choice from vendors like Dell before they start a project to phase out a desktop.
Not sure why this is newsworthy but then very little here is.... :\
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?