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!

Now Is Not the Time for Vista

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the is-anyone-ever-really-ready-for-an-os-upgrade dept.

Microsoft 402

narramissic writes "With nearly a month of Vista availability behind us, businesses don't seem to be in any rush to take the leap. An article on ITworld cites two significant reasons for the foot-dragging. First, Microsoft's case-by-case approach to Vista patches, which is leaving some problems unpatched until after the consumer release in January. Second, application (in)compatibility. From the article: 'Some of the applications that still aren't compatible with Vista include IBM Corp.'s Lotus Notes e-mail and collaboration suite; Cisco Systems Inc.'s and Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.'s VPN clients; Intuit Corp.'s accounting software QuickBooks 2006 and earlier versions; and anti-virus (AV) software from Trend Micro Inc.'"'

cancel ×

402 comments

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

Migration (4, Insightful)

HazMathew (207212) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397868)

It's just not economic. It seems to me companys will not migrate to Vista until they absolutely HAVE to have Vista on their machines. That could be awhile.

Now Is Not the Time for Linux (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398008)

Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.

Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".

Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in /tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"

So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.

Re:Now Is Not the Time for Linux (2, Funny)

harrypelles (872287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398142)

I swear I've seen the parent text here copied-and-pasted into another article. What, do you have the Slashdot Mod-Point Play Book; running it play-by-play?

Re:Now Is Not the Time for Linux (1)

mrpostal (840460) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398448)

it's an old troll, I've seen it loads of times. I don't even think it's relevant anymore. I haven't tried q3 on linux, if I want some quakey action I load up cube or sauerbraten :).

Re:Now Is Not the Time for Linux (1)

doulos447 (321712) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398180)

Seems to me the point was not about running to Linux as alternative to Vista, but staying with XP.

As Slashdot pointed out (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397870)

Nothing for you to see here, please move along. That fits Vista like a glove.

BTW, First Post?

My workplace (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397872)

Where I work, the MD openly uses warez. The version of Adobe professional he has is the same pirate copy I have.

Once the WGA has a decent crack, I'm sure he'll be upgrading.

teh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397882)

firstpost

AV incompatible? So? (5, Insightful)

iainl (136759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397884)

The others I understand, and if Quickbooks in particular is broken I can't upgrade our machine (natch; I wanted the Media Centre stuff for my 360).

But why would you care that the XP version of an AV product doesn't work on Vista? Surely there are enough differences between the OSes that you'll need a new virus scan?

Re:AV incompatible? So? (1)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397918)

What media center stuff is included in Vista for the 360? Is it something beyond Windows Media Player 11's ability to stream audio and (limited) video? [xbox.com]

Re:AV incompatible? So? (1)

iainl (136759) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398002)

Yes, if you're running a full Media Centre (XP Media Centre Edition would do my job just as well, but I can't be bothered to reformat and reinstall just for this, when I'm planning to move to Vista anyway just as soon as everything works) then you can stream MPEG2 video files as well as WMV ones. Which is nice, since converting to MPEG2 is a lot faster (and easier) than WMV9.

Sure, if you're doing these things professionally, WMV9 smacks the ancient MPEG2 format out of the park, but I'm prepared to trade some quality for actually getting to see what I've downloaded some time this evening.

Re:AV incompatible? So? (4, Funny)

z0idberg (888892) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398282)

Not only that, Vista isnt even going to need ANY AV products! Microsoft said so themselves:

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/10/011 4210 [slashdot.org]

Re:AV incompatible? So? (1)

jaymaxSEA (1044192) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398530)

Not true. The article merely says he's comfortable with his son using Vista without AV protection. He doesn't make the blanket statement that all users don't need AV for Vista. Btw, I participated in Vista beta testing (actually reverted to XP). However, MS, at least to us, suggested the opposite, as they partnered with Trend Micro to provide AV for Vista and we got it for free. If MS thought Vista was so secure and AV wasn't needed, I doubt we would have been given free copies of TrendMicro AV.

Re:AV incompatible? So? (5, Insightful)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398480)

But why would you care that the XP version of an AV product doesn't work on Vista? Surely there are enough differences between the OSes that you'll need a new virus scan?

Assuming this to be true, it still does not answer the fundamental question:

"Why bother?"

There's a new Shimano Grouppo out too. The mere fact that Shimano has released it doesn't in any way compel or obligate me to buy it. Releasing it is their issue, not mine.

My old Grouppo still works just fine.

So here's what they do:

The Grouppos require special, made only by Shimano (they have patents and shit) chains. They will discontinue making the chain for the Grouppo I already have, so just to buy a new chain I will eventually have to buy a new Grouppo.

Does this behavior sound at all familiar?

KFG

Outlook Web Access (1)

dominic7 (70356) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397886)

That should top the list.

Re:Outlook Web Access (1)

nef704 (1044772) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398094)

Outlook Web Access works fine in vista... Not sure what you are talking about

Re:Outlook Web Access (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398420)

OWA also works on Linux and several other non-Windows operating systems. That's sort of the point of web-based software. If it won't run on Vista, Vista is seriously broken.

Right (4, Funny)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397892)

Because we all know that corporations love to throw out their existing infrastructure and redeploy with newly released software.

Re:Right (5, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397980)

Because we all know that corporations love to throw out their existing infrastructure and redeploy with newly released software.

Well, the simple fact of the matter is that XP/2000 work just fine for a corporate environment. It's not like Vista will add any more stability over what's already available. When 2000/XP came out they were worlds beyond what 9x offered and a little better than what NT offered.

There's no need to switch when everyone's applications are running w/o too much issue and there are too many questions that need to be answered about how the new OS will operate.

That and I'm not sure people want to have to retrain their staff to use the "ribbons" of Office 2007 that Bill is so excited about.

The Einstein Troll (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398228)

The truth is Einstein was not a healthy man.

First off his wife [pbs.org] helped him come up with the e=mc^2 theory, yet she received no credit for it.

In the original publishing of the theory in 1905 she was credited with co-author credits [pbs.org]

Einstein himself spoke to her as an equal in respect to science. He all but admits to collaborating with her on his 1905 papers which made him famous.

In a 1901 letter he refers to the theory of relativity as our work [cudenver.edu]

Another small piece of Einstein history that few people know is the terms of his divorce from his first wife (The woman mentioned above) was that she received all prize money when he wins a Nobel prize for the theory of relativity. He agreed to this and in fact Einstein never saw any of the money when he won the Nobel prize.


Einstein awarded Nobel PrizeAfter seven nominations, Albert wins the 1921 medal for physics. He gives the prize money to Mileva, per their 1919 divorce agreement. It is the smallest cash award since the Nobel Prize was created, worth about $348,000 (in 2003 USD).


Sorry, I can't link to it but it is in the PBS timeline.

The kicker is that after his divorce from the woman who helped make him famous, the guy married his cousin. Yup, his COUSIN!!!!

cousin fucker [wikipedia.org]

So there you have it folks, the man so many think of as a symbol of modern science not only stole ideas (or at the very least refused to acknowledge getting help) from his wife but also decided that it would be fun to screw his cousin.

Notes doesnt work? That is a feature, baby! (5, Funny)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397902)

An OS that wont run Notes should be at the top of every IT manager's list, as far as I'm concerned.

Re:Notes doesnt work? That is a feature, baby! (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397922)

"Vista ain't done till Notes won't run"? ;)

Re:Notes doesnt work? That is a feature, baby! (1)

jimstapleton (999106) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398354)

Now if they can just fix the "Eudora still runs" bug, it'll be ready for production.

Re:Notes doesnt work? That is a feature, baby! (2, Funny)

LoudMusic (199347) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398550)

An OS that wont run Notes should be at the top of every IT manager's list, as far as I'm concerned.
Hallelujah! A reason to upgrade! `Course, AmigaOS would be acceptable for the same reason.

might be lack of exposure to the right people, too (4, Interesting)

eck011219 (851729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397914)

Seems to me that it may also be that CEOs and others who make decisions haven't had the chance to experience it on a new home computer yet. I remember XP didn't take off for a while, but then was adopted by businesses more and more as execs started having it at home and liking the pretty colors and the bells and whistles. I suspect these decisions aren't based as much on stability as we'd all like to think -- I think a lot of adoption of Vista will happen when powerful people (not necessarily technical people) start wanting some of Vista's fun or pretty stuff at the office. And they just haven't had a chance to find out about it yet.

Re:might be lack of exposure to the right people, (3, Funny)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397944)

Yeah, If MS would just bundle some ego stroking audio chat bot with Vista that told those CEOs how great they were all day, it'd be an immediate hit ;)

Re:might be lack of exposure to the right people, (2, Funny)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398088)

I remember XP didn't take off for a while, but then was adopted by businesses more and more as execs started having it at home and liking the pretty colors and the bells and whistles.

Yeah, and the funny thing is: once the IT department started deploying XP, they virtually removed all the fancy funny things with group policies.

I fixed that in XP by turning off the eyecandy (1)

heybiff (519445) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398148)

I remember getting comments like "this is Windows 98". That meant I did my job as Desktop Support Specialist just right, no visible differences from OS to OS - same apps, same icons, same settings, just stability and speed baby.

I'm sure I can pull off the same trick with Vista.

Heybiff

P.S. The school I used to work at will surely do exactly as the OP said, and start rolling out Vista on as many of thier 400+ machines as they can as soon as they can. Leadership in the Tech department is very into bells and whistles.

Re:I fixed that in XP by turning off the eyecandy (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398382)

The school I used to work at will surely do exactly as the OP said, and start rolling out Vista on as many of thier 400+ machines as they can as soon as they can. Leadership in the Tech department is very into bells and whistles.

Yup, on their P-III 1GHz, 256Meg RAM systems that barely runs WinXP right now. Wouldn't surprise me a bit... *sigh* (Worked for a school for a while, glad I'm not there anymore!)

Isn't this the story with ALL new MS releases? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397916)

Especially the software incompatibility issues. What business will switch if their apps won't work properly? Not to mention the hardware requirements, etc.

No wonder. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397924)

This doesn't come as a surprise as with its new look it will take time to get used for the business users.
Also apart from softwares it will take lot of time for drivers to come out.

I know that my organization (I work for a leading Investment bank) is not considering it until 2008 for even testing.

Now is not time for Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397930)

Now is not time for DRM either.
Never.

Same Old Cycle (5, Insightful)

Genocaust (1031046) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397938)

I don't see how the slow adoption of Vista is any different from previous Windows releases, except that the consumer version is being delayed a month rather than be released in tandem. The DoD only truly migrated fully to XP early last year; no corporation with a large IT infrastructure is going to be eager to lead the charge without concrete proof that upgrading will benefit them in the long term.

This is unusual how? (5, Insightful)

throx (42621) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397940)

Some corporations are still running Windows 98. Many are on Windows 2000. Very rarely will a corporation migrate to a one month old operating system - they'll trial it in very select areas to shake out the bugs and tech support issues they are likely to face and then deploy 6-30 months later (depending on the date of their upgrade cycle).

Vista *will* roll out to businesses, but don't expect it to overtake XP any faster than XP overtook 2000, or 2000 overtook 98, etc.

And Notes won't run? Damn - I'm upgrading NOW.

Re:This is unusual how? (0, Troll)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398292)

Some corporations are still running Windows 98.

Any company still running Windows 98 deserves to go out of business. If they are public entities, they should be investigated. Any company running Windows 98 should fire their IT staff.

Any IA guy with 98 on his network should either quit, commit suicide, and change careers. He should never mention it to any other IA guy.

Seriously, now, do YOU really know any companies serious about their business that are still running Windows 98? And you do nothing about it? That's like seeing a bleeding man at the side of the road and passing him by. Hell, they'd be better off with Linspire 1.0, at a minimum.

Re:This is unusual how? (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398410)

What about the hundreds of small one or two person companies? You, know, plumbers, carpenters (oh, heck, doctors and lawyers!) and the like that buy a computer for writing letters and never go online with them? The machines that have been bought 5 years ago, still work fine and do the job? For many of those people a computer was a huge investment (especially that their lives don't revolve around it, like it does for us).

You really think those people should go out of business? Look, I may be a Corporate Drone (uhm Troll, according to my nick), but there is a world beyond "finely managed IT infrastructure".

Re:This is unusual how? (1)

lokiomega (596833) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398438)

Yes, I see it all the time. In fact, companies would still use their Tandys from back in the day if it still did what they need it to do. Companies only care about the bottom line, and upgrading costs money. If the current solution already does the job, then there's no need to upgrade. Don't fix what's not broken.

Re:This is unusual how? (1, Insightful)

955301 (209856) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398450)

Vista *might* roll out. But my company just switched to Mac OS instead. The backoffice servers are all linux. There is only one windows machine for accounting, and that is due to roll over to a Mac at the beginning of the new year.

Vista is windows dead end. I believe a mass exodus to Apple computers will be occurring over the next five year. Up until and including Windows 2000, Microsoft deserved the market share they have had. But with Windows XP came especially Vista comes the realization that the company has lost their way.

It will take some serious losses, perhaps even half of the company, before someone will be able to come in and turn things around again.

They'll "upgrade" when they buy new machines, duh. (2, Informative)

captainjaroslav (893479) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397948)

Seriously, what reason is there to upgrade right now? You don't need to have a reason NOT to upgrade. When businesses eventually need new machines and Vista is the OEM OS, then businesses, and for that matter, academic institutions, etc., will start using it. This will be true if it turns out to be the best OS ever or a complete piece of unnecessary bloatware. It's strange to me that this continues to be brought up on /., it seems so obvious.

Re:They'll "upgrade" when they buy new machines, d (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398090)

Even then most companies may not use Vista. I can think of two reasons:

1) Most companies have volume licenses and custom Windows configurations.
Like my company, the first thing they do is wipe the HD and install their customized Windows image. I know of some companies who are still on Win2K. Eventually, they'll upgrade but on their timeline, not MS.

2)Most of the new user features require serious hardware.
Most users won't get the nifty UI changes unless they go with better hardware. Unlike XP and Win2K, the basic onboard video won't work. Most companies don't buy a computer with a separate video card unless it's for a specific reason (i.e. Computer for a graphic designer). They pick the basic model with onboard video because of cost. The end user will never see the nifty Aero effects and thus no real benefit to upgrading a user.

Re:They'll "upgrade" when they buy new machines, d (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398532)

I know of some companies who are still on Win2K. Eventually, they'll upgrade but on their timeline, not MS.

I recently worked for a big company that was finally biting the bullet and converting all their W95 machines to W98. I figure they'll start considering Vista in 2015 or so.

Somehow I doubt that this is an isolated case. Most business people understand that if you have something that's doing the job, you don't replace it with something unfamiliar.

How about Office 97 and 2K (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397950)

I'm sure the next computer I buy will end up having Vista come pre-installed, for my "convenience". Anyone know if the previous versions of Office work with it? I'm particularly interested in Office 2K (Word, Powerpoint, and Excel), since that has worked the best for me and is still considered the standard format in a number of workplace environments.

Re:How about Office 97 and 2K (1)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398114)

Opps. Put the scary quotes around the wrong word. It's supposed to be: [...] for "my" convenience.

Now is not the time for Vista (1)

MaGogue (859961) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397956)

Good.

Notes compatibility (4, Insightful)

photozz (168291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397964)

Notes is such a shitty program I'm surprised it's running in WinXP much less Vista....

Re:Notes compatibility (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398084)

The irony is, I was reading recently that Notes was released for Mac OS X [ibm.com] :-) Not that I care -- I don't run Notes or Vista -- but it is funny.

Is this the modern update to the old myth [slashdot.org] that "DOS isn't done until Lotus won't run?" [slashdot.org]

Re:Notes compatibility (2, Funny)

HazMathew (207212) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398136)

Ah, Notes... The first pile of steaming dung I smell in the morning. Sure gets my day going.

Wow (2, Interesting)

organgtool (966989) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397970)

No support for Cisco VPN software or Lotus Notes? Why would Microsoft cater its release of Vista to businesses when it doesn't support software that is essential for many businesses to run? I'm sure Microsoft will blame the developers of the incompatible software for not rushing out a release that is compatible with Vista and those developers will blame Microsoft for breaking compatibility to fix the broken security architecture of previous versions of Windows. I'm also sure that Microsoft's response to businesses that use Lotus Notes would be something to the tune "Have you considered using Microsoft Exchange? We can guarantee it's 100% compatible with Vista." It's things like this that make me happy that I no longer use Microsoft products.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398054)

Cisco VPN Client (4.8.01.0590) works fine on Vista, I use it daily.

Incompatible with Lotus Notes (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17397978)

Anything that is incompatible with Lotus Notes is a step in the right direction. Notes email is unspeakably bad.

we upgraded (3, Informative)

CDPatten (907182) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397982)

I have a small client (75 users) and we are on a five year plan for new hardware... it was up in October. We bought new Dell's and Vista Business in November, and rolled them out last week.

In the Ad industry we have to use lots (7) of custom apps for Media, Accounting, and Shipping. We had 2 problems. 1 wasn't the program but the installer didn't detect the correct OS. It was a small app so we just copied it over with its .dlls. The other problem was solved perfectly by running the shortcut in compatibility mode.

As for the users: very happy with Vista and Office 2007. I mean, really happy. I'm sure it helps that they now have big flat screen monitors and faster computers, but we are getting lots of good feedback at the agency.

The OS: We wrote a few custom gadgets to automate a few tacks in about 10 minutes a piece, and people love them. We don't do the indexed search for network shares so people really aren't talking about that, but believe it or not, they love the animations and the "pretty" stuff. We never had a problem with XP crashing or anything so the fact that Vista is stable doesn't really change much for us.

For anyone thinking about Office 2007: It went over huge here, between the ribbon and all the visual additions (especially smart objects). Actually our Accounting department is loving the new excel, and our president is pretty excited about the toys in powerpoint. Word seems to be liked but that is the one we hear least about.

From my perspective: The Vista imaging software and new group policy is awesome. We did the rollout over the weekend, and it went off without a hitch. I'm not really giving MS credit for that, we worked on the image for a few weeks, but we are very happy so far.

Re:we upgraded (4, Funny)

meringuoid (568297) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398038)

Actually our Accounting department is loving the new excel, and our president is pretty excited about the toys in powerpoint.

I pity whoever goes into the next meeting. PHB Powerpoint mindset: "I've got these toys and by God I'm going to use them ALL!"

Re:we upgraded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398064)

I don't get it really? Many of the "toys" are simply autmated ways to make nice looking diagrams and objects. Changing the "skin" of the presentation on the fly.

Not sure what you mean?

Re:we upgraded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398544)

He means that's annoying. Special effects/skins/themes in presentations have all the sex appeal of blinking text in webpages.

Just the facts, please -- unless you're in sales, in which case there's medical help available.

Complementary... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398074)

I have a small client (75 users) and we are on a five year plan for new hardware... it was up in October. We bought new Dell's and Vista Business in November, and rolled them out last week.

In the Ad industry we have to use lots (7) of custom apps for Media, Accounting, and Shipping. We had 2 problems. 1 wasn't the program but the installer didn't detect the correct OS. It was a small app so we just copied it over with its .dlls. The other problem was solved perfectly by running the shortcut in compatibility mode.

As for the users: very happy with Vista and Office 2007. I mean, really happy. I'm sure it helps that they now have big flat screen monitors and faster computers, but we are getting lots of good feedback at the agency.

The OS: We wrote a few custom gadgets to automate a few tacks in about 10 minutes a piece, and people love them. We don't do the indexed search for network shares so people really aren't talking about that, but believe it or not, they love the animations and the "pretty" stuff. We never had a problem with XP crashing or anything so the fact that Vista is stable doesn't really change much for us.

For anyone thinking about Office 2007: It went over huge here, between the ribbon and all the visual additions (especially smart objects). Actually our Accounting department is loving the new excel, and our president is pretty excited about the toys in powerpoint. Word seems to be liked but that is the one we hear least about.

From my perspective: The Vista imaging software and new group policy is awesome. We did the rollout over the weekend, and it went off without a hitch. I'm not really giving MS credit for that, we worked on the image for a few weeks, but we are very happy so far.
Dude... Umm... Sorry to interrupt but there's an express courier from Microsoft at the front desk. He claims he's got a complementary laptop for you.

Re:we upgraded (2, Insightful)

frdmfghtr (603968) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398100)

Considering that you are in the advertising industry, I'm not surprised that your user love the "animations and "pretty" stuff. The ad industry is about images that portray something positive and desirable about the advertised product to the target audience. Thus, users being focused on the visual appearance of Vista and Office 2007 is no surprise.

It's not a criticism, just an observation.

Re:we upgraded (1)

vertinox (846076) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398158)

For anyone thinking about Office 2007: It went over huge here, between the ribbon and all the visual additions (especially smart objects). Actually our Accounting department is loving the new excel, and our president is pretty excited about the toys in powerpoint. Word seems to be liked but that is the one we hear least about.

I have to admit that after playing around with Office 2007 that those apps can take your useless crap numbers and make it look important or that you paid a graphic artists to make it look important.

Great for boring speakers and people who want to fudge stock prices at meetings with fancy power point presentations.

Re:we upgraded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398212)

I'm sure they'd be very happy to know that all the money spent on hardware to actually run Vista and Office2k7 (they they didn't absolutely need in the first place) for everyone could have been better spent on a cost-of-living increase in their salaries.

Why don't you show them the bill for all those workstations and then see how happy they are.

Btw, Microsoft called; they said they need you for a promotional meeting next week with local businesses and want to know if you're available.

Re:we upgraded (1, Flamebait)

endeavour31 (640795) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398470)

Listen to the shit responses ./ becomes more puerile by the day.

Just because someone reports a positive Microsoft experience - - that cannot be right!! They must be a dupe, shill or paid off to be so stupid. Why the fuck isn't he rolling out Gentoo instead?

Perhaps Vista is not as bad as everyone hopes. Perhaps you can run a business on MS server software with MSSQL and Exchange without bluescreens. But no - - in this reality everything MS MUST suck or the whole raison d'etre of Slashdot is negated.

Businesses aren't upgrading because... (5, Insightful)

Ice Wewe (936718) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397992)

"With nearly a month of Vista availability behind us, businesses don't seem to be in any rush to take the leap."

IMHO, businesses aren't in a rush to upgrade to Vista because of the incompatabilities mentioned in the article, and the fact that upgrading costs a lot of money. Some of which, these businessess don't have, or weren't planning on using for a Vista upgrade.

If I may speculate on behalf of the businesses, with all the applications that they likely use on a daily bases not working, and the increased cost of upgrading (which you then have to pay off/make up in increased profits), they'd rather wait until most of these problems are fixed in the operating system they're going to pay for. You're probably thinking "well, there's no time like the present", and you'd be wrong. Businesses stand to loose a lot of money if the applications they rely on (and perhaps weren't mentioned in the incompatability list, but also have limited/no functionality) don't work until 6 months later when MSFT releases an update to fix all (nice dream, mind if I join?) the applications compatability issues.

Businesses would rather stick with what they've got right now for the next little while. It doesn't cost them as much to maintain an OS thats already been installed and is functioning, as it would to install Vista, and deal with all the resulting problems. It doesn't matter to them if they wait an extra 6 months to upgrade, because it will mean less loss in revenue.

Just my opinion.

Missing Option (1)

lbmouse (473316) | more than 7 years ago | (#17397994)

I think one of the biggest hurdles facing enterprise adoption of Vista is hardware requirements. I don't know if we have any machines in my company that could make use of the new features let alone run the damn thing.

... and you live in a shoebox ... (1)

Marbleless (640965) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398240)

Our test machines are AMD XP 1700+, 512MB, FX-5200 & 7200RPM IDE drives.

They run vista fine (including Glass) and at comparable speeds to XP. They are running VS2005 & Office 2003 plus all the usual apps like Firefox etc.

I'd be surprised if your company doesn't have some systems of that calibre.

Apologies for the Monty Python reference :)

... and you live in a dream world ... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398298)

Many of our servers are still running NT 4.0. Large corporations don't always upgrade as quickly as smaller companies. Our IT staff is still working on getting individual users upgraded to XP. There isn't a single workstation in my department that can handle Vista.

Re:... and you live in a dream world ... (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398368)

Many of our servers are still running NT 4.0.

Any company still running NT 4.0 deserves to go out of business. If they are public entities, they should be investigated. Any company running NT 4.0 should fire their IT staff.

Any IA guy with NT 4.0 on his...

Wait, I've said this before [slashdot.org] .

Are you the same guy that said other companies are still running Windows 98?

Re:... and you live in a shoebox ... (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398546)

That's quite surprising. Those machines are at least 5 years old.... Keep in mind though, that they have a fairly recent graphics card and that most corporate desktops have integrated graphics. Integrated graphics are usually not capable enough to run Aero.

I have a AMD 2400+ MP/4Gig RAM and said FX5200 and I didn't think that Vista would run. My wife has a P-IV 2.4GHz HT with 2Gigs of RAM and a Ti4200 (my old graphics card) and I frankly don't expect Vista to run on it either. My work laptop claims to be Vista Ready, but with a Intel Core 2 Duo and only 2Gig RAM and integrated Intel Graphics I expect it to run just barely. Heck, right now, I'm using over 1.2Gig on a WinXP Pro config in "Classic" mode. Tried to run some games on it and frankly it wasn't all that convincing. Might work, but performance will suffer.

Thing is: I want my machines to perform as well as they did before the upgrade. Unless I turn off all goodies in Vista, that will not happen... thus, what is the point of upgrading the OS?

That's why Vista is ready for launch (2, Funny)

Travoltus (110240) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398000)

When nothing except certain M$ software will work with Vista, it's ready to go.

[sarcasm off]

Because it is not out yet??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398006)

I just bought a laptop. It came with XP, not Vista. Why is that?

Because Vista isn't out yet.

http://www.microsoft.com/Windowsvista/ [microsoft.com]

January 30, 2007 is when Vista will be available. You can not buy it now. You can buy XP and get a free upgrade to Vista at select retailers, such as NewEgg http://promotions.newegg.com/microsoft/vista/index .html [newegg.com] but you can not buy Vista.

Re:Because it is not out yet??? (1)

chrismcdirty (677039) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398098)

I believe this [microsoft.com] is the page you were looking for. Business edition was available in late November.

Quote from the article (5, Insightful)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398026)

And honestly, people can argue until they're blue in the face about how XP is fine, but the reality is that it's five years old, technology has changed and a new OS is necessary.

Does this guy even know what an OS is? There is no reason why new technology can't be supported in an "old OS". Especially if the "new OS" is basically an update of the "old OS".

Re:Quote from the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398376)

Giving [something] a new name and calling it "new" makes people think like this. You can typically use the "gullible isn't in the dictionary" joke with them.

So far, I haven't seen anything in Vista that couldn't have been an XP update. The real cool "new" stuff didn't make it for whatever reasons. If anyone has any examples, I would be interested to hear it.

Weather, not time, is the determining factor... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398062)

for Vista.

Has Hell frozen over yet? Then no Vista for me, thanks.

or testing perhaps? (2, Informative)

briancnorton (586947) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398108)

Seriously, what business has a testing cycle for an OS that can be done in a month? I mean where I am we're JUST NOW getting ready to go XP, 5.5 years after release, and nearly half of the machines will stay on Win2000 indefinitely. A month (or even a year or two) is not foot-dragging, it's responsible business use of IT.

vista is bad (1)

linuxIsLife (1044762) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398118)

Now we have a piece of software that is called vista. This is another big mistake of M$.

Same with NT, Win2K, XP. Not a big deal. (5, Informative)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398146)

Hardly news. This should not be read as a mass rejection of Vista, just an indication that corporation IT departments do their job in a reasonably competent and responsive way.

It takes about a year-and-a-half before a corporation that fully intends to transition to the new OS is ready for the "rollout." Typically this involves a good deal of preparation so that everyone in the company gets their new PC, their training classes, their new application versions, and their direction for migrating at about the same time.

At the introduction of every major Windows upgrade, the same things have happened: Gartner et al have told corporations to take their time adopting the new OS, and corporations, whether because they listen to the analysts or for their own reasons, have done so.

Re:Same with NT, Win2K, XP. Not a big deal. (1)

majortom1981 (949402) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398192)

Wow I am glad to see a non fanboy comment on here. Why would an it department switch to an os before all their programs work on it? This is not a vista problem. I dont understand why all these articles like this keep getting written.

Re:Same with NT, Win2K, XP. Not a big deal. (1)

RPGonAS400 (956583) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398244)

I agree. The only version of Windows that I have seen my employers jumping on quickly was Windows 3.1 After that the delay has been at least a year for newer versions. Maybe IT gets a box with a newer version to play with, but general rollout is usually quite delayed.

Gee (1)

Klaidas (981300) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398168)

Just wait till all those flavors get released in 2007. Then, after 6 months you can write an article.

Why is this on the back of Microsoft? (0, Troll)

nef704 (1044772) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398188)

What I dont get is why people are blaming application incompatabilities on Microsoft. These companies have all had well over a year to release a version that works under Vista. If they are incompatable at this point it is no ones fault but their own.

Not entertaining anytime soon (3, Informative)

div_2n (525075) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398190)

With the support of the CFO and CEO, I've developed the policy that we won't even entertain Vista until a minimum of SP1 and a year of full release has passed. In other words, we won't even begin testing until January 2008. I doubt our company is alone.

I don't doubt Vista will make some traction, but it seems to me that the likelihood is in a very slow adoption rate. By the time businesses are ready to take it seriously, many companies may be very open to alternatives that will have matured quite nicely. After all--with quite a few perfectly good computers sitting around that won't run Vista either at all or very well, why should we ditch those resources when we can reallocate them as a Linux desktop?

Re:Not entertaining anytime soon (2, Insightful)

majortom1981 (949402) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398210)

so you are stating that you rather be a hypocrite and switch over to a compeltely brand new operating system and have compeltely new programs and everything else faster then vista where alot of drivers and programs still work under compatibility mode in vista? Yes I am stating this because of your linux comments.

Tepid, tepid, tepid - Windows ME (1, Interesting)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398196)

I'm not upgrading, and I'm a huge MS user. As a matter of full disclosure, I'm a .NET programmer, SharePoint developer, I prefer MS over almost any other offering except virtualization platforms, accounting software, and media creation. I live in Washington, and regulary attend MS events in Seattle and Redmond. Now, onto the Vista:

It's slow and a resource hog, and none of their different "levels" fits well enough for me. I don't want the low end, but the level of Vista that has what I want and need has a bunch of crap I don't, and costs too much, and the next level down, has hardly of the stuff I want.

I bought a fairly beefy laptop last year, so I can run virtual servers for development when I'm on the road. It's not within the minimum guidelines for Vista. I've tried to run it on my desktop and laptop, no go.

Software I rely upon will not work with Vista. Sure, Visual Studio 2003 is a no go. I also develop in 2005, and I can build .NET 1.1 from that, but...haven't gotten it to work on Vista.

Vista will be an also ran for MS OS's. It will be like MS-DOS 4.0 (back then, I tried it, and retrograded to 3.2 very quickly). Hell, MS isn't pushing it hard like they were with XP.

What has worked in the past for MS should work for the next version, the OS should:

  • work with 4 year-old equipment, processors, memory, etc.
  • be compatable with SW from the same time frame
  • come in 2, maybe 3 levels of implementation (excluding servers)
    • Home - Price point under $70
    • Professional - Price point under $120
    • Extra (maybe - Price point under $150
  • Upgradeable from one level to the next without a complete reinstall
  • Beyond basic OS, all extras, funky new desktops, including browser, media player, text pads, etc. are optional installs.
  • And, allow me to virtualize it, dammit!
  • Oh, and give it a name that doesn't blow, or suck.

So, I'm sticking with my XP for now, I will wait for the next OS, the one that MS creates after learning what a disaster Vista is.

Re:Tepid, tepid, tepid - Windows ME (1)

linuxIsLife (1044762) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398272)

Have you some experience with Linux or other not M$ OS ? I mean what you think about not M$ OS ?

Re:Tepid, tepid, tepid - Windows ME (1)

WED Fan (911325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398478)

Have you some experience with Linux or other not M$ OS ? I mean what you think about not M$ OS ?

Back during the bad old .com days, I worked for a company called eCharge [echarge.com] . We were running Solaris. It was fun to work with, fairly easy.

I started with computers in the mid-70's (age reveal) and have tried all of the one-offs,CP/M [wikipedia.org] , DR-DOS was fun, OS/2 was a blast (IBM has a serious history of killing their own product), worked with NEXT at Lam Research [lamrc.com] , and have toyed with Linux flavors over the years (every day, non-geek users aren't going there yet).

I have developed in Pascal, C, C++, BASIC, VB, C#, Java, JavaScript. I do what clients want. I'm no idealogue, or counter-culture evangelist. My clients want .NET, Windows OS, and their MS Office apps.

Re:Tepid, tepid, tepid - Windows ME (2, Insightful)

benzapp (464105) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398460)

It's slow and a resource hog, and none of their different "levels" fits well enough for me. I don't want the low end, but the level of Vista that has what I want and need has a bunch of crap I don't, and costs too much, and the next level down, has hardly of the stuff I want.

It's funny, people were saying the same thing about XP versus 2000 until MS refused to patch 2000 a few years ago. I've used Vista, and it is faster than my 1 year old installation of XP. XP has a nasty habit of getting fucked over time. My machine is fairly mid-range these days.

As for the software versions - christ, 5 versions aren't enough for you? Whatever.

work with 4 year-old equipment, processors, memory, etc.

MS has NEVER released a major release OS that did this. In 1991, many computers still shipped with 1 or 2 megs of ram. Windows 95 was certainly not designed for this. In 1997, most computers shipped with 32 megs of ram, totally insufficient to run windows XP. Especially when today, there is new stuff that really can change the computing experience - dual core processors make multithreading really functional, hybrid hard drives will revolutionize laptop usage, modern graphics cards can really improve the desktop experience - why would MS give a shit about what was happening 4 years ago?

be compatable with SW from the same time frame

Name one major program released in the last 4 years that will not run on Vista.

come in 2, maybe 3 levels of implementation (excluding servers)
Home - Price point under $70
Professional - Price point under $120
Extra (maybe - Price point under $150


MS has kept almost the same pricing structure for ages. You pulled these prices out of your ass.

Upgradeable from one level to the next without a complete reinstall

I'm not quite sure why this would matter.

Beyond basic OS, all extras, funky new desktops, including browser, media player, text pads, etc. are optional installs.

Much of this is optional. You obviously haven't installed it.

And, allow me to virtualize it, dammit!

Only the home edition doesn't allow virtualization. 99% of people using virtualization use it for development or business purposes, so this does sort of make sense. By the business or ultimate edition.

Oh, and give it a name that doesn't blow, or suck.

It doesn't suck as much as you! Vista is a cool name. I like it!

You SHOULD upgrade (0, Redundant)

Toby The Economist (811138) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398218)

Notes isn't compatible?

There IS a reason to upgrade to Vista!

Cisco is to blame, not Microsoft... (2, Insightful)

trimbo (127919) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398222)

Regarding application compatibility, this is the fault of the vendor, not Microsoft. The vendors had well a year or more to get their stuff working with Vista while it was in beta.

That said, I'm not upgrading essential work machines to Vista yet either. Once we get .NET 3.0 applications up and running and enough new machines with Vista pre-installed, that would be the time to upgrade.

Re:Cisco is to blame, not Microsoft... (4, Informative)

Lxy (80823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398306)

Regarding application compatibility, this is the fault of the vendor, not Microsoft. The vendors had well a year or more to get their stuff working with Vista while it was in beta.

According to several vendors, the IP stack kept changing throughout the beta process. After several futile attempts to write code against the stack, most vendors have had to wait until final release before building their products. Novell coems to mind, I'm sure Cisco and others are in the same boat.

Slashdot quota (1, Interesting)

Lxy (80823) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398266)

Is there some quota that Slashdot must post at least one pointless Vista story every day? For crying out loud, the OS isn't even available to the public yet.

Business migrations take time. Get used to it. You should be, since Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows XP Service Pack 2 have taken plenty of time to get tested and rolled out in the business world. I listed SP2 seperately because it really needs to be treated like its own OS. It's like no OS service pack we've seen before.

Vista is like every other OS since Windows 95. Nothing compelling to make most users want to upgrade, nothing compelling to make ANY business want to upgrade. Eventually XP SP2 will become ancient history and some application will require Vista, which is what usually drives OS rollouts in business. Hopefully your business is forward thinking enough to plan ahead and be ready for that day. In the meantime, no one is waiting anxiously for Vista, we're waiting for a REASON to use Vista.

Now, to figure out how to filter out stories with the word "Vista" in the subject..

Huh? Cisco is compatible (1)

pathological liar (659969) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398304)

There are Vista-compatible Cisco VPN client builds, starting with version 4.8.xxxx.

Re:Huh? Cisco is compatible (2, Interesting)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398348)

Exactly. I've been running the Cisco VPN Client for Vista now for two months. Works fine.

Lotus Notes? (1)

joshv (13017) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398318)

Since when has Lotus Notes ever been compatible with windows?

Re:Lotus Notes? (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398552)

Hey what do you mean Notes is incompatible? In what way?
We use Lotus Notes in about 15,000 installations at our Bank. Of course, rolling out the image is hard, but then there is nothing problematic after that.
Maybe you got a older version of Notes.

Nobody asked for Windows XP, either. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17398324)

Windows 2000 was probably the most anticipated Windows release since Windows 95. Everyone was waiting for it. I remember seeing articles on what "NT 5.0" would bring as early as 1996, 1997. Everyone wanted it to bring NT stability to home users, and driver support to Windows NT. I was one of those people who was curious about the hype. It was a big deal. And many of us were reasonably impressed with it.

Merely a year or two later, Windows XP came along. It was the release no one really asked for. What did it provide, other than a change of look and menus that most of us disabled the first chance we got? (And maybe fast user switching. Yes, later service packs would provide firewalls and other features, but I am talking about the first release.) I remember seeing it for the first time, and I was unimpressed.

Experience... (1)

pe1chl (90186) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398326)

Experience in the past has showed that we better wait until SP1 or maybe even SP2 before considering a migration.
Maybe 10% of the workstations at work is "Vista ready". We most likely will not write off the other 90%.

I would say, give it at least a year and probably a servicepack, and only then start evaluating the costs and benefits.

I'll be upgrading (2, Funny)

Borland (123542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398334)

Why? Well first of all I'm a masochist: TMI I know. But they suckered me in with the free year long trial of Vista RC1. It's shiny, pretty, and unfinished but it's more than usable.

Plus, I like to experiment with the new features and see what's under the hood. Switch to Gentoo you say? I could, but then I'd have to get my hands gooey at levels that I'd rather remain a mystery (the kernel should remain distant, angry, and invisible like a God).

I'm Microsoft's ideal early adopter: Easily impressed and willing to try new things along pre-arranged paths. Yeah, Apple did most of it before them and others before Apple...but I'm not a communist and don't believe in that hippy crap. Like Sony and consoles, the next generation doesn't arrive until the biggest behemoth in the industry says so. Finally clarity is brought to my world.®

Cisco VPN Client (1)

Acidangl (86850) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398400)

I'm running the newest cisco VPN client on vista right now...........it works fine.......

Definately Agree (1)

jmickle (941634) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398488)

I Definately agree that it is just not time for vista. Although many new functions of vista are very hand for example power shell. As well as much more functionality on the server side. the incompatibility of software such as quickbooks shows it is not worth it. I know my current company as well as the last 6 companies i have worked at used quickbooks. None of those companies planned on using anything other. without the software there is no point. Remember leading edge not bleeding edge.

I think this is another M$ $trategy backfire... (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398494)

I'll bet they're moving slowly on Vista patches and application compatibility to demonstrate how using M$-only software on your M$ computer network really is better! After all, "it all just works!", right?

Right? Uh, guys...

Also, because they're pissed at all the A/V vendors - one, they're making money of M$'s cash cow; two, their very existence is a constant reminder of everything that's wrong with M$ products; three, they're making money of M$'s cash cow; four, they often catch and correct security problems before M$ can even admit they exist; five, they're making money of M$'s cash cow; six . . .

We may not have flying cars, but at least (thanks to Mr. Ballmer) we have flying chairs! Maybe M$ should patent that; after reading my comment, I'll bet Mr. Ballmer'd love to give me a flying chair!

Maybe compatibility is not important (2, Insightful)

marcomarrero (521557) | more than 7 years ago | (#17398500)

Maybe it is too costly for Microsoft to dedicate resources for compatibility issues. It might be a nice way clean-up Win32... maybe anti-Wine? They probably knew people and companies won't jump ASAP to Vista (it happened to Win2k3 server), so, why they should care? Is Vista the Windows Me equivalent?

Actually most versions of Windows do a lot of compatibility checks and fixes, but it was because Microsoft wanted people to upgrade (I would say it was a long term plan to migrate everyone to NT). Win 95 was a Win 3.x upgrade, 2000/XP were Win 9x/Me upgrades. For example, Win95 did check for a lot of DOS device drivers - junk probably nobody used like ancient network drivers and weird tape drives.

If I had a product incompatible on Vista, probably Microsoft would blame me for doing stuff they have probably documented "it won't work", and probably also ask me why I didn't test it in all those Vista beta versions. It's a great opportunity for software companies to release new products (regardless of usefulness).

Anyway, they can slowly wait until XP becomes officially obsolete.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>