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!

A Majority of Businesses Will Not Move To Vista

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the happy-where-they-are dept.

Businesses 378

oDDmON oUT writes "An article on the Computerworld site quotes polling results from a potentially-divisive PatchLink survey. The poll shows that the majority of enterprise customers feel there are no compelling security enhancements in Windows Vista, that they have no plans to migrate to it in the near term and that many will 'either stick with the Windows they have, or turn to Linux or Mac OS X'. A majority, 87%, said they would stay with their existing version of Windows. This comes on the heels of a dissenting view of Vista's track record in the area of security at the six month mark, which sparked a heated discussion on numerous forums."

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

anagram for sure (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20058201)

top stir fs!

Slashdot... oh slashdot... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20058209)

Perhaps this could be because they are already satisfied with the versions of Windows that they have? At least satisfied enough that they will put off upgrading and spending all that money until a few years from now.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (4, Insightful)

LBArrettAnderson (655246) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058275)

Exactly. Everyone I have communicated with who has actually used Vista say that it's great and that they haven't had any problems (including myself. I've been using Vista business for several weeks and haven't had a single problem with drivers, compatibility, or anything else). I doubt businesses are putting this off because they think Vista sucks, but rather because XP works just fine, and it wouldn't make sense to spend money on something that isn't broken.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (5, Interesting)

rwven (663186) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058393)

On the contrary, I've spoken to many people who have used and hated Vista and a few who have sworn if off entirely. I started using Vista at the end of February. I dropped it and switched back to XP in the middle of July. The few benefits of using Vista don't come anywhere near the downsides. I liked the new look & some explorer elements, but there were some core elements that just wouldnt work the way I wanted, as well as many large issues with stability. (The computer was built in february with over the top specs.) XP runs very fast and solid as a rock on it.

I could go into details, but I don't want to become a troll. Suffice to say, I'm happy on XP, wasn't on Vista.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (2, Insightful)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058445)

don't you worry, microsoft will probably build a software update that will screw things up to compel users to switch to vista...

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (5, Interesting)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058511)

I doubt businesses are putting this off because they think Vista sucks, but rather because XP works just fine, and it wouldn't make sense to spend money on something that isn't broken.

It's a little bit of both actually. My own company sent out a memo stating that no PC is allowed to be purchased with Vista and not to upgrade to IE7. They also cited a government response to this [informationweek.com] . (which I submitted posted here on /. back in March, but never got picked up that I noticed)

You see, the thing is NOT that Vista is broken but that other software breaks on Vista. You see the difference? We're not talking about some Video games or Office Suite programs but 3rd party business applications such as accounting software, medical software, etc. Along with IE7, my own companies IT department has been testing IE7 and Vista and have concluded that a lot of our 3rd party software that runs a lot of our day-to-days would not work or crash often on Vista or IE7 (for internet based apps.).

Given expectation of most people that a computer will 'just work' no matter what setup it is, it's much easier to just ban it altogether until there's a need for it. Also, there's the obvious reasoning for cost, which I due agree that it's the most important reason. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

Safe to say, they're waiting for for the cost to come down or until MS forces everyone to buy it by a) stopping XP support b) requiring Vista to run programs (such as Halo 2, Shadowrun, etc that they're trying to do with the gaming market... and I absolutely refuse to take part in and I hope Linux and open source can get something to compete with DX10 and supported by companies before that happens so I can happily switch to Linux for gaming.)

Cheers,
Fozzy

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (2, Insightful)

DaveWick79 (939388) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058773)

You see, the thing is NOT that Vista is broken but that other software breaks on Vista.

How much of this is due to lazy software development by 3rd party vendors in the past 12 years since Windows 95 came on the scene? Many of the incompatibilities are due to hard coded file and data paths, poorly implemented file and registry permissions that require administrative user access to run the software, or non-standard GUI implementations. How does one create a secure OS when the applications that run on it are so poorly written? Vista breaking 3rd party apps was unfortunately a step MS had to make or they would run into more unfair criticism because they didn't do anything to fix security issues. Funny thing is I haven't seen MS apps break yet. Developers for years have been creating "Windows" software but they have been taking shortcuts to avoid the Windows interface. To me, that is the problem and there is no way MS could have made Windows more secure without alienating those broken apps.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (3, Insightful)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 7 years ago | (#20059111)

How much of this is due to lazy software development by 3rd party vendors in the past 12 years since Windows 95 came on the scene? Many of the incompatibilities are due to hard coded file and data paths, poorly implemented file and registry permissions that require administrative user access to run the software, or non-standard GUI implementations. How does one create a secure OS when the applications that run on it are so poorly written? Vista breaking 3rd party apps was unfortunately a step MS had to make or they would run into more unfair criticism because they didn't do anything to fix security issues. Funny thing is I haven't seen MS apps break yet. Developers for years have been creating "Windows" software but they have been taking shortcuts to avoid the Windows interface. To me, that is the problem and there is no way MS could have made Windows more secure without alienating those broken apps.
What you say is true, but it doesn't change the situation. Basicly, you're saying that people don't switch to Vista for the same reason they don't switch to OS X -- their apps won't run on it.

MS was able to gain such a huge marketshare because they found the sweet spot for upgrading... there has been a continual backwards compatability between OS releases, with only a few API calls being broken with each release. The result is that people still have batch scripts and DOS software that will run under XP -- but all this ends with Vista.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (2, Insightful)

Verteiron (224042) | more than 7 years ago | (#20059153)

That's not the point, though. People -need- to use these apps in order to run their business. Should the application providers upgrade their crummy software? Sure they should. Are they? Maybe. But if that software doesn't run on Vista, that company is not going to upgrade to Vista. That creates problems for Microsoft, not the business, and not (so much) the application provider.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (1)

kc2keo (694222) | more than 7 years ago | (#20059141)

I worked with a small company for 2 weeks and they refused to switch to Vista or use IE7 because the apps they required for business did not function in Vista. The apps that ran in a browser did not work in IE7. I'm sure many other companies made this business decision. Also, everything they had setup was working just fine so why should they go through the trouble of setting up a different system? Finally they also would have to get new licenses for Vista. Lots of trouble to switch systems when its lots of computer equipment involved that needs to work together.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (1)

querist (97166) | more than 7 years ago | (#20059189)

I am not so sure that it is Vista, per se, that is causing the problems. I noticed several applications broke once IE7 was installed. Several of my older son's games broke with IE7. Once we rolled it back to IE6 everything was fine again.

Granted, Vista may have other issues, and it may indeed break applications on its own, but it has been observed that IE7 breaks programs without Vista.

-Q

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058639)

Well, I don't exactly claim to have a big sample among those I know, but neither are linux fans:
1) Got a new laptop (no XP option). Complained about compatibility, but tried to stick with it last I heard.
2) Got two bluescreens in one day using Vista, installed XP and all is well. Left the Vista HDD in just in case he changes his mind, but I doubt it.

So everyone.... well, since I'm 2 for 2 who don't like it, I guess there's quite a few not happy with it.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058705)

I've seen both. I'm using it, and its working great for me.

A friend is using it, and its working great on his desktop. On his laptop, he's had major frame rate drops, but it works.

Another friend had to revert to XP due to Vista blue screening so often that he couldn't do anything in WoW.

I think you're right though, the problem is simply that people have XP figured out, and it does the job. There's no reason to go through the expense and hassle of a migration.

YMMV (2, Interesting)

Lonewolf666 (259450) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058761)

Well... my sample is a bit smaller, as only two people I know have used Vista in the first place. But both of them were not so happy.

One is the owner of a small electronics company, and his experience (relayed to me through a colleague) was that he encountered several problems. OK, it's hearsay and not very accurate...

The other one is a software tester from a consulting company we work with. He told me in person that they "set up one laptop for evaluation, and ended up deciding not to switch to Vista". I know the guys from that company as competent testers and reasonably knowledgeable about Windows. If they have trouble getting it to work right, I conclude that the average user should avoid Vista ;-)

Do what I want, or I won't buy it. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20058795)

A verizon cell phone takes pictures, but I can't transfer them to my hard drive, so it is a broken digital camera. Therefore, that "feature" is not a selling point for me.

The iPhone doesn't support Flash or Java (and won't ever support them, from what I hear, because Apple wants to be the only company that can write software for it). Thus, it is broken both as a handheld computer and as a web browser. Again, those features, as cool as they are, are not selling points for me.

Windows Vista comes with spyware, DRM, and other such malware built-in as part of the core OS. Thus, it will not do what I want it to do, and it will do things I don't want it to do. It's new features are not selling points for me.

What I am getting at is this trend, both in software land and gadget land, of trying to make consumers buy products that limit them, rather than empower them. It is as if they are saying, "of course you want it to be an open and compatible system, but if you have that then you might be able to do things of which I disapprove (whether they are legal or not) or for which I would prefer to charge you. So, I will not give you what you want, but you will buy it anyway."

No, I won't.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058823)

That does not reflect the experience my company has seen. They purchased laptops for several people (developers, managers) and more than one of those laptops has been in for constant service due to the pre-loaded software completely not functioning. The worst one was laptop where the manufacturer reloaded the software from the install DVD multiple times, and each time the same problem happened because the anti-virus software was not compatible with Vista.

Probably, in a year or so, these problems will go away as vendors become more prepared.

Businesses will adopt... (2, Insightful)

conspirator57 (1123519) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058857)

About a month after MS announce the date they will shelve support for XP. Remember when XP was shiny and new, or at least shiny and a year old and businesses had a low (though not quite as low) adoption rate? As soon as they announced the date of EoL for 2000, businesses started adopting. It'll happen again this time. MS collects from business about 2 years after each OS release by coercing them by pulling support.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (1)

CuteAlien (415982) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058999)

It's not even so much the money. I recently bought a new Windows - and it was XP which did cost about the same like Vista (not sure if it was exactly the same, but that didn't even matter). My reason for this was simple that buying something unknown like Vista was not worth the risk of having some tools maybe no longer work afterwards.

I had heard about some problems with MinGW on Vista - and that was already enough reason to stay on XP as I need MinGW for my work. Maybe those problems where exaggerated or not even true, but I saw just no reason to find that out myself. Vista might be nice and is probably even better than XP in many cases, but there's no single thing I really need or want so much, that I'm willing to take any risk. I suppose a lot of businesses think the same way.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20059127)

I've had nothing but problems with Vista since clients run applications that aren't compatible yet. I've also had several problems with drivers, even on new hardware. I've had systems bluescreen much more often with Vista. I have clients running VMWare Player with Windows XP cause they wanted Vista but couldn't run software. How lame is that? oh, don't buy a new Sony laptop. You can't get the drivers for XP anymore!!! Manufacturers are already making it impossible to downgrade to XP.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (4, Funny)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058279)

Shh, stop spoiling the fun.

It's clear that large corporations are normally the early adopters and it's highly unusual that we didn't see CTOs standing outside Circuit City at midnight waiting for Vista to be released so they could immediately install it on their mission-critical machines.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (-1, Offtopic)

trolltalk.com (1108067) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058533)

Only a real dickhead [trolltalk.com] would install Vista at work ... but what Microsoft wants, Microsoft gets.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058541)

Of course. And do you know how many trucks are needed to ship hundreds of Windows Vista SKUs to enterprise customers? It's not funny!

Enterprises also assembles all computer from parts bought through Newegg, to save money.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058707)

let me jump right on that bandwagon! [wikipedia.org] oh by the way, did I mention that for $300 more dollars that you can give us more of your dollars in a safe, affordable transaction, you can get vista business edition via giving us more of your dollars?

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (0, Troll)

slughead (592713) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058675)

Perhaps this could be because they are already satisfied with the versions of Windows that they have? At least satisfied enough that they will put off upgrading and spending all that money until a few years from now.

Whatever.

I read a statistic a few years ago that said 60+% of companies wouldn't be upgrading to M$' new licensing scheme which had been released at the time. Among other things, it required businesses to upgrade to Windows XP (presumably from 2k).

Guess what? Most did. Linux and OS X are still not viable options for many businesses. We'll see how it goes when Vista finally matures.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (1)

CmdrGravy (645153) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058717)

I'm working at a fairly small company at the moment ( around 900 employees ) and they have no plans to move to Vista at the moment. Those who've used it do like it but any new kit is being bought with XP simply because from a support point of view it's easier if everyone is on the same standardised platform and there's nothing Vista can do which we can't also do on XP ( from the point of view of our business apps ).

I imagine at some stage they may switch but in the meantime it's simply an uncessary expense and the time and money can be spent more effectively by IT improving the business apps. I would think this is a fairly typical scenario.

Re:Slashdot... oh slashdot... (1)

uncoveror (570620) | more than 7 years ago | (#20059179)

"Upgrading" to something that is so different that everyone has to learn how to use it all over again will cause incalculable losses in productivity. It could bankrupt a company that is already having trouble making ends meet. Even worse than Vista is Office 2007. It is so unlike Office 2003 and previous versions that simple functions like print and save are a chore to find. Every time you fix something that ain't broke, you get something that is.

MS made big mistake with XP (5, Funny)

Sciros (986030) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058229)

It didn't suck enough. Stuff works with it, it's secure enough, it's no longer costly, it uses a fraction of the firepower recommended for Vista.

I don't think Vista is a bad OS at all. But if XP is working fine, and the next step up is only a mild improvement (and from my experience, something that the home user will notice more than a work user), it's not worth switching. XP just isn't bad enough to move on from.

(Now, if only OS's could get crappier over time, like cars...) Maybe MS should release a "critical update" that turns it into Windows ME or 98.

Re:MS made big mistake with XP (1)

Octopus (19153) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058371)

I feel exactly the same way about 2000, because I just don't need the shiny, candy-like buttons. Microsoft still supports it - at least right now - and I haven't found software yet I couldn't install on it. Perhaps at some point I'll finally make the switch... to Gentoo or some shit. As long as I can still web dev on it, and run Starcraft and MAME, I'm a happy man.

I'll probably run 2000 Server here on my desktop until the Internet literally won't let me and sends a feedback pulse through my cable modem which blows up my monitor in my face.

Re:MS made big mistake with XP (0)

Tom9729 (1134127) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058737)

I don't believe Microsoft supports Windows 2k anymore, though I may be wrong.

I _do_ know for sure though that Starcraft runs fine in Wine, and Linux has several good MAME emulators. As for web development? Linux has several good Web Design programs. Screem, Bluefish ... and Emacs come to mind. :P And almost every distro in existence packages Apache. You could switch and be fairly comfortable right now, though I'm not sure I'd recommend Gentoo for a new user (or any user).

Re:MS made big mistake with XP (4, Interesting)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058495)

Exactly. Vista would probably slow most people down anyway because of the resource issue. Maybe in another couple of years when more companies are upgrading their systems company-wide.

Personally, I think Windows peaked with 2000.

Re:MS made big mistake with XP (2, Interesting)

derrida (918536) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058503)

Maybe MS should release a "critical update" that turns it into Windows ME or 98.
Already did [microsoft.com] .

Re:MS made big mistake with XP (5, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058599)

Not a bad OS? Have you been following the news? Spontaneous reboots, driver problems, VPN compatibility issues, application compatibility issues, USB device corruption...

If XP's only advantage over Vista was that "it doesn't suck enough", then you'd be seeing a repeat of the XP rollout. In that case, a few people upgraded their 2000 and 98 machines to XP. But mostly, people got XP when they got new computers.

This time, it's not just the old systems that are not getting upgraded. Brand new systems are still mostly shipping with XP. People don't trust the beast, and with good reason.

Re:MS made big mistake with XP (1)

Sciros (986030) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058721)

There's issues of that sort with any OS rollout. When XP was released, a bunch of folks bashed it and praised 2000 as a far superior offering. It's the same thing this time around in that regard. I've had few issues with Vista at home (although it has been unable to network with our HP printer, which is a bother and most certainly Vista's fault, though something I *can* fix if I put in the effort), and find much of what it does to be an improvement over XP. It *has* made my user experience better, overall. Not something I expected, being a /. regular ^_^

Re:MS made big mistake with XP (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058785)

Say what you like about XP, but it was still a huge step up from 98/ME...
If you were running 2000 there was little reason to update it, but 98/ME were total crap. There are very few instances where someone would want to roll back, plenty of people went back to 2000 however.

Operation PUMPKIN (2, Insightful)

mfh (56) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058631)

(Now, if only OS's could get crappier over time, like cars...) Maybe MS should release a "critical update" that turns it into Windows ME or 98.

Couldn't help think of Cinderella when you said that. But is that what people really want? Do they really want software decay? No.

That's part of what older generations can't grasp... is how software is infinite and does not degrade like every other product. That means the best business model with software will always be SERVICE not product or captive audience. Just offer a service that makes sense and people will buy it.

Re:Operation PUMPKIN (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 7 years ago | (#20059013)

Do they really want software decay?

What else do you think Product Activation is for?

Re:MS made big mistake with XP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20058641)

Its not Vista's fault. A lot of software and hardware companies are too lazy to upgrade their drivers, and when finally compelled to by their customers, release very buggy code, and then point the finger at MS.

To compare, imagine if, when Apple made the jump from OS 9 to OS X, if the third party vendors refused to support it, and when people demanded it, made crap that would cause kernel panics left and right, then blamed it on how bad OS X was.

I feel like a MS shill, but this isn't Microsoft's fault. Its the moronic developers and companies who won't spend the money to keep up with the times.

Re:MS made big mistake with XP (1)

Sciros (986030) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058763)

I'm not saying Vista is bad... the driver problem though is something that is partially MS's fault. Take for instance my HP color laser printer... it's networked to various computers in our home, but my new Vista computer is just not working with it. It finds the printer, installs drivers, and ... nothing doing. Vista *should* have shipped with support of things like commonly available HP color laser printers right out of the box. It's not like HP is a very obscure company. So, in this particular case, I can't really say it's HP's fault over MS's.

Or maybe... (4, Insightful)

hotsauce (514237) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058687)

...they could make a compelling upgrade, so users want to upgrade.

It wouldn't be the first time they copied a certain fruit company.

But they will probably just stop supporting XP, and then that 87% will buy Vista, for fear of the next virus.

Re:MS made big mistake with XP (1)

krelian (525362) | more than 7 years ago | (#20059079)

\ (Now, if only OS's could get crappier over time, like cars...)
I haven't used Vista yet but every Windows version I used up until now did get crappy over time. It's called Windows Rot [google.com] . As someone who installs lots of software on his machine this is single handedly the most annoying Windows "feature" ever.

Of course this can be fixed by reinstalling but it's really not a viable solution.

Not a Big Surprise (4, Insightful)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058233)

Notwithstanding the issues some users are having, Vista seems to me to be more of a consumer oriented operating system. It doesn't really have much to add to businesses beyond UAC, which I'm guessing most system administrators will turn off (in exchange for one of their internal security policies). Thats not even considering the fact that large businesses are extremely slow to upgrade to anything new. We only got XP Service Pack 2 where I work in the past year.

Re:Not a Big Surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20058887)

"Vista seems to me to be more of a consumer oriented operating system. It doesn't really have much to add to businesses beyond UAC..."

I'd say the opposite is true. Vista is made for the Industry not the consumer. Consumer's are dairy cows to be milked for their money.

XP was much the same (3, Insightful)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058239)

Businesses were *very* slow to adopt XP for many of the same reasons. Until the platform is patched up some and compelling business reasons come out in favor of migrating, they won't. It's been like that with every Windows release actually. This isn't news; it is normal.

Re:XP was much the same (1)

winkydink (650484) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058399)

Yup. And businesses were slow to upgrade from NT4 for Win2k as well. It's expensive to upgrade an enterprise's underlying OS. You need to test all of your in-house & 3rd party apps to ensure they work, you need to plan to actually upgrade the machines, train users, etc... Until there's a compelling financial reason to do so, most companies choose to stay with what they already have installed.

Re:XP was much the same (2, Interesting)

div_2n (525075) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058403)

Except that you didn't have to forklift upgrade the vast majority of your systems in order to implement XP. You also didn't have to buy beefy computers to run it acceptably either. As long as existing computers work and are under warranty, Vista won't make a lot of traction.

This gives businesses time to consider alternatives and also time for alternatives to mature even more than they already have.

Re:XP was much the same (2, Informative)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058733)

In my short career thus far I've seen hundreds of businesses move to XP but only one that actually upgraded the OS on existing machines. Most businesses will get Vista just like this did with XP. During their 3 year hardware refresh. Most businesses these days are leasing their hardware and will be more than happy to get laptops which have no trouble handling Vista.

Given that everyone knew Vista was on the horizon and how MS deals with roll-outs a lot of businesses did their refresh last year since the devil you know is usually better than the devil you don't. Makes sense to me, I don't know why a business would upgrade the OS either from 2000 to XP or from XP to Vista. You end up with extra crap you don't need if you do it poorly or you end up gaining very little for your efforts. If the OS comes with the machine then there is no work in deploying the OS. You just join it to the domain and GP installs SMS client which installs Office and any other apps you wish to deploy. Easy as pie and works with old and new OS's.

Re:XP was much the same (2, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058455)


It's been like that with every Windows release actually. This isn't news; it is normal.

I tend to agree, and this was my first thought on reading this article.

I remember way back after Windows 95 came out there were many businesses that just refused to switch, despite 95 being a million times more stable, better UI, etc than the (IMO embarrassingly bad) Windows 3.1. Microsoft was still selling Windows 3.1 licenses as late as perhaps 1998 due to corporate pressure.

Now this isn't quite like that transition. I'm of the opinion that XP wasn't really an improvement over 2000, and 2000 was at the 'good enough" stage.

Re:XP was much the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20058669)

XP showed up just 1 year and 8 months after 2000 which might be way people didn't upgrade. But Vista was released 5y3m after 2000, so it's a totally different scenario.

Re:XP was much the same (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20058719)

Don't any other IT guys have all the morons asking, "Can I get Vista?" As if they will do anything other than use Office and the internet. They are the same morons that always ask for a flat screen monitor, as if that does anything for productivity. IT guys understand that Vista won't help users be more productive. In fact you just have to train them how to do different things. Best to wait until they have used it elsewhere so I don't have to teach them where the search is now, what is this pop up thing, etc.

As far as better security, the only thing that I hear of is the UAC. Which is pretty much nullified on my network because there are only a few users that are administrators on their computer. Most are just regular users that can't do anything the UAC will block.

Next /. headline -- (-1, Offtopic)

Lord of Hyphens (975895) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058245)

Sky Blue; Water Wet.

Smell that? It's the stench of burning karma.

Now the real question is.. (4, Insightful)

techiemikey (1126169) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058267)

Whether businesses will have a choice when they order new computer's through their provider.

Of course they will (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058333)

Even small businesses can request a custom image be loaded on most of the major PC manufacturer's product lines. It's home consumers who get stuck with whatever the OS du jour is.

Re:Now the real question is.. (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058341)

All they need to do is buy them blank or buy with Vista and nuke the install with an XP image from a mass-key install. Can't think of the name for those corporate mass keys at the moment, though :D

"many will 'either stick with the Windows...." (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20058297)

"many will 'either stick with the Windows they have, or turn to Linux or Mac OS X"
Hahaha, oh man, "turn to Limux of MacOSX", that's really really funny!

Re:"many will 'either stick with the Windows...." (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20058459)

If adoption of open document standards becomes widespread, there will be virtually no reason not to move to linux, Mac or anything else. If you can access all you documents, browse the web and play solitaire in these alternatives, 85% of all business needs are covered.

Is there a free alternative to MSAccess? If so, change that fake statistics to 95%.

Linux / OSX plans (2, Interesting)

kripkenstein (913150) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058305)

Last year, Linux and Max OS X had only meager appeal to the CIOs, CSOs, IT and network administrators surveyed: 2% said they planned to deploy the open-source Linux, while none owned up to Mac OS X plans. July's survey, however, noted a six-fold increase in the total willing to do without Windows on at least some systems: 8% of those polled acknowledged Linux plans and 4% said they would deploy Mac OS X.
Hmm, assuming the data indeed reflects reality, this is a significant development, isn't it?

Re:Linux / OSX plans (2, Insightful)

geeknado (1117395) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058633)

Maybe. Polls like this are hard enough to interpret when they clearly state the question that's been asked by the pollster. These swings, while dramatic, could easily be influenced by the way in which a question was phrased if it changed from year to year...Note that different companies conducted each poll in question, so it's very likely that the questions themselves, while similar, in fact varied quite substantially. Heck, we don't even know what the stated margin of error associated with these statistics is.

In essence, I think it's hard to conclude that these numbers have much significance with the information we have.

We're one of them... (3, Informative)

NIN1385 (760712) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058307)

I have instructed my boss to not purchase any new computer with Vista on it for at least a year or two. Just some of the horror stories I have read about all the incompatibility and the problems with just using the interface was enough. I did however have an coworker who received a new laptop with Vista on it and we have had nothing but problems with it. Our printers wouldn't install and I cannot believe how overly complicated they made it to find anything in the operating system.

It's unbelievable what they have compromised just so they can have flashy graphics and smooth looking buttons. It all boils down to one thing in the end however, I just don't see any benefit to upgrading any time soon so therefore there's no reason to. We will continue to buy our new PCs from Dell with Windows XP on them until they either quit offering it or we have a piece of equipment that requires it.

Re:We're one of them... (3, Insightful)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058585)

Just some of the horror stories I have read about all the incompatibility and the problems with just using the interface was enough.

Hmm.. I didn't think reading stories counted as research anymore, but I guess it does nowadays. Of course the majority of Vista users without problems are not out on the messages boards singing its praises, they (like me) are simply using their computer and find it more pleasent than XP.

I did however have an coworker who received a new laptop with Vista on it and we have had nothing but problems with it. Our printers wouldn't install and I cannot believe how overly complicated they made it to find anything in the operating system.

Ahh, one test machine and you've written off Vista. I had print drivers that don't install, but that's because the manufactor hasn't released any Vista drivers for the printer. Personally, I've found things are better orgainized in Vista than with XP, once I figured out how they set it up.

It's unbelievable what they have compromised just so they can have flashy graphics and smooth looking buttons. It all boils down to one thing in the end however, I just don't see any benefit to upgrading any time soon so therefore there's no reason to.

OS makers have a tough time selling their product. It IS more secure and more locked down (I've hit this when doing my everyday development on Vista). I've also read some technical artciles about what is more restricted in Vista. So I'm included to say they are there.

Unfortunately all most people see is the new UI. Its the only part of the OS you interact with, even though there are quite a few new features in there. Building applications on the new UI IS going to be much easier for me.. no longer do I have to fork out money just to get a context menu that can have a textbox in it.. I can put one together myself easily.

At any rate, I'm not posting to say you should upgrade or that I think you need Vista right now.. my main objective was to point out flaws in your reasoning used to tell your boss not to buy Vista; nothing you've posted about indicates that you did any kind of real evaluation at all, and I think that you need to be called out on that.

Re:We're one of them... (4, Insightful)

Rycross (836649) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058655)

To be fair, incidents of problems are just evidence of risk. Vista is a new OS, which means that certain kinks and driver support are still being worked out. Theres no reason to subject critical business machines to any sort of risk when XP and/or 2003 works fine for them right now.

If my boss asked me if we should upgrade to Vista, then I would tell him "No" without a second thought. And I actually like Vista.

Re:We're one of them... (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058811)

You don't need incidents of problems to know there's risk. There's always risk. Lets say that for every one Vista problem poster you had 250,000 users without a problem. Should that lead you to say "absolutely not?" Especially without evaluating the OS on your own hardware, with the software you actually use, in your own environment?

You also ignore any security risks; Vista does seem to be much more secure than XP. Even running as an admin, you're not really an admin. That in itself is a pretty big change that could help mitigate some risks.

My problem is that everyone ignores the risks of the current system and overplay risks with the new system, all without actually attempting to evaluate anything on their own.

I wouldn't tell my boss "without a second thought" without at least evaluating Vista.

Re:We're one of them... (1)

NIN1385 (760712) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058911)

Point taken, but I have already learned to deal with the risks involved with our current systems and it would be a huge waste of money to move to Vista and dedicate all the time needed to adapt to the newer OS. The article was about businesses not implementing Vista and I think this is a huge part of it. I have a vista machine at home, but I don't think it's cost effective for businesses to upgrade until it is something they can benefit from.

Re:We're one of them... (1)

NIN1385 (760712) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058859)

If you knew the people that work here you would not see my early write off of Vista as a bad thing. I deal with novice users at best all day long and the UI is reason enough for me to say no to it. If I worked with programmers and developers all day I wouldn't have much of a problem with moving everyone to vista because they would more than likely research the problems themselves and find the appropriate workarounds for whatever they want to change.

I myself am able to use Vista, and fix problems or annoyances that I find with it but I am not about to do that for 40+ machines until we get everything the way people like it. I understand that they are improving things that badly needed improving such as security but I do not see any benefit in the new GUI other than trying to look as flashy as apple. I see this as nothing more than software bloat used to sell newer hardware. People don't like change, especially novice sales reps that complain when their font size changes and I don't feel like dealing with that on top of everything else.

Wish my campus had seen this... (1)

Vokkyt (739289) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058317)

For some reason, our software licensing folk installed Vista on all public access terminals this last weekend, contrary to the position taken by our IT people and our College of Business who decided to stay with XP until Vista was a little more office friendly. Won't somebody think of the students!?

Re:Wish my campus had seen this... (1)

ggKimmieGal (982958) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058449)

Oh God... I go back to school in a few weeks... and now you have me worried about my poor computer science lab. This is exactly the kind of thing our new head of department would do because she's stupid. Now you have me worried. :S Time to beg a cool professor for another server for us students who don't want to use Vista yet.

Re:Wish my campus had seen this... (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058627)

Students are going to have to learn how to use Vista, so might as well dump 'em in at the deep end...

Sticking with windows (5, Informative)

Mike1024 (184871) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058329)

many will 'either stick with the Windows they have, or turn to Linux or Mac OS X'
Well, lets see what the actual numbers are (quoting the article):

2% said they are already running Vista
9% said they planned to roll out Vista in the next three months.
87%, said they would stay with their existing version(s) of Windows.
8% of those polled acknowledged Linux plans and
4% said they would deploy Mac OS X.

I would say "many will stick with the Windows they have", certainly, but I'm not sure I would call 8% or 4% 'many'. And somehow I suspect 'linux plans' might not mean complete replacement of Windows on the desktop.

Just my $0.02

Re:Sticking with windows (1)

Gregb05 (754217) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058453)

Wow, did the article really cite that 110% of people responded?

*R'sTFA*

Re:Sticking with windows (1)

Gregb05 (754217) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058513)

Linux was never given as a primary option by developers; in TFA they appear to have asked about Linux on *some* systems, not as a primary development and working platform.

It sadly reflects the state of Linux, as a supplement for certain applications (servers, embedded devices, etc.), not a end-all replacement.

Re:Sticking with windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20058567)

Those responses wouldn't be mutually exclusive even if they were from the same study, which they aren't.

Re:Sticking with windows (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058597)

It obviously wasn't a 'pick only one' poll. It's possible to upgrade to vista AND have linux plans AND roll out mac osx stuff all at once.

Re:Sticking with windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20058467)

Obviously not each poll response excludes the others (2+9+87+8+4 > 100), however, the first 3 responses ARE exclusive within themselves. You can't already be running Vista AND plan to roll it out in the next 3 months AND stay with previous versions of windows. You can only accomplish 1 of those. So let's see... 2+9+87 == 98% of businesses will be running Windows. Now those 8% and 4% don't look too significant, do they? The 8% and 4% only state that at least 1 of the machines will have something to do with Linux and/or Mac OS X.

Re:Sticking with windows (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058751)

Actually, you'd expect the 2% who are already running vista to also come under the "stick with their existing version(s) of windows" category...
Unless ofcourse that having used vista, they are considering rolling back or migrating away from it to osx/linux.

Re:Sticking with windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20058473)

Well, 87% + 8% + 4% means that 99% will 'either stick with the Windows they have, or turn to Linux or Mac OS X' which I consider to be many. Its just the other 11% that are going with Vista.

Re:Sticking with windows (1)

fullmetal55 (698310) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058587)

Anyone else find that they're counting 110% in that list? sure 2% is probabally part of 87%, but where's the other 8? could they be the "linux plans?" aka not a full company wide rollout of linux, but stay with existing versions of windows, and roll out linux to a select few? and hmm, didn't this come out when XP was released 5 years ago? similar stats? looks similar. and btw, I loev how so many people complain about the steep hw requirements of vista. when just 5 years ago, people were complaining about the steep hw requirments of XP, and 12 years ago, windows 95... I'd just like to welcome our new IT folks to the wonderful time that is a windows launch... in 2 years the hw requirements will be moot...

Also would really depend on who you asked (3, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058757)

I've met more than a couple sysadmins who were being very indignant about Vista at first with the whole "It sucks, nothing works, DRM is t3h evil, I'm switching to Linux!" line. However as time has gone on none of them have made even a budge in that direction and are indeed toying with Vista. The "Well I'll just switch to Linux then," almost seems to be the sysadmin equivalent of a tantrum in some cases. They threaten with a switch that they not only have no real intention of making, but indeed no idea what would be involved.

Also, given those choices, I'm not surprised there are a small number that are switching. Had you asked me before recently if we were rolling Vista out in the next three months the answer would have been no. We are going to roll it out (somewhere around three months is the timetable for the first lab I'm planning on converting) but it isn't like we are just going to rush in to it. Things need to be tested, license needs to be hashed out and purchased, etc, etc. So while our long term answer is "Yes we are going to slowly convert all systems to Vista in the coming years," we aren't going to be converting them tomorrow or anything.

Really, all the doom and gloom about Vista seems silly as it has been doing just like past Windows OSes, and even a bit better if you use sales number as the benchmark. Adoption isn't going to be in a big rush, but rather a slow trickle. Right now Vista systems are pretty rare, I'm guessing only slightly more common than Windows 2000 systems. Next time this year I bet they are common, but under 50%. Year after that I bet they are the majority, year after that I bet XP is downright rare.

It is how is has generally gone in the past, no reason to assume it'll be different this time as their are no different indicators. No, the increased hardware demands are nothing new. I remember the bitching with XP over 2000 and particularly NT (which some were running when XP came out). Now, the issues seem like squabbling given the progress in computer power. Similar deal with Vista. It may sound like a lot when someone says "Really, you should ahve a gig of RAM for it," until you realise that a gig of RAM is $50 or less. It really isn't a big deal these days and will only become less so in the future.

Re:Sticking with windows (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058951)

And somehow I suspect 'linux plans' might not mean complete replacement of Windows on the desktop.

A good point, considering if even if none of those 8% "acknowledging Linux plans" are talking about on the desktop, there is still a 102% pie being split up between Windows (Any) and Mac OSX.

Also, note this is in the next three months. Yeah, most businesses tend to be slow in adopting something that could put them out of business. Now, if it covered the next 3 years, then we could talk.

This is due to.... (1)

EntropyXP (956792) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058339)

1. Lots of incompatable software. Lots of companies use software that isn't compatable with Vista.

2. It's expensive! Why upgrade your machines so you can run Vista that isn't compatable with lots of software?

3. People are wising up. Upgrade fever is really only common with enthusiasts anyways. There's no need to drop endless amounts of cash for upgrades when what you have is really working. I just watched someone finally upgrade to XP because 2000 didn't have a feature that they needed. Ha... they are only now "upgrading" to XP. The great thing about it is that they don't need to update the hardware.

Vista is great for the PC Enthusiasts out there and it may advance home computing by some degree but I don't see it taking off in the commercial work place for several years. Or atleast, until the Microsoft nazis round up every last installation disk of XP and stop supporting XP. God, I can only imagine what would happen if they stopped supporting XP. Anyone know when that might actually happen?

Wrong Department? (1)

u-bend (1095729) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058343)

from the happy-where-they-are dept.
Shouldn't that be "from the less-miserable-than-where-they'd-be-with-Vista dept."?
:)
I hear a lot of people bitching about XP every day, but they'd all be loathe to switch to Vista. In fact, they'd have a good chuckle at the very notion. I'm actually impressed that relatively many are considering an alternate OS....

If not now, but when? (3, Insightful)

pzs (857406) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058355)

I suppose this is probably a hoary old chestnut, but I always wonder how long we can be kept on the upgrade band-wagon. Up until quite recently, I ran a Windows 98 machine because it did most of the things I needed it to do. I could connect to the web, make SSH connections, write Word documents and play (older) games. It also had a really small install and ran on a crappy old machine.

For people who don't need the latest and greatest hardware support, where is the motivation to upgrade at all? I suppose there are probably security issues with the older Windows versions, but I think you can avoid a lot of this by being careful; something which will probably still be necessary with Windows 2060.

This argument applies even further with application software like Word. I'm not sure I've noticed any of Word's new features since they started underlining my spelling errors, and yet there have been quite a few major (expensive) version since then. Other than version incompatibility and the fact that everybody else is upgrading, why do we need a new version?

Peter

The "KISS principle" or It's an OS, not a blender" (1)

LordPhantom (763327) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058367)

Microsoft has simply discovered that bloat != functionality (and that marketing correctly is important). XP works great, handles all current software that businesses need, and the improvements in the OS are things that are available as freeware add-ons today (and probably work better, at least in the public opinion). The other "under the hood" changes don't mean much to the average Joe User or PHB, and anyone who values "cool desktop graphics" over functionality has already bought a Mac. Try selling a business on spending a ton of money on conversion costs to an OS that requires faster hardware (upgrades) and provides little benefit in the current business marketplace over existing solutions and see how far YOU get.

Most SMB's can (1)

otacon (445694) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058413)

Most small or medium sized companies can stay with XP for awhile if it is working for them. But when you get into larger companies you have to keep in mind 'how long does MS plan on supporting XP'. Most larger companies will not run on unsupported software or hardware. It might seem trivial, considering that's how most good sysadmins see xp. But, from a business stand point it's an unnecessary risk.

Won't move *now* (1)

Klaidas (981300) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058427)

Give it a few years. 98 took 95's place, xp took 98's place, and vista is coming to xp computers. Even if the foss/linux zeal^H^H^H advocates don't like it and enjoy stories like that. I find it stupid to think that everyone should move to an OS which has been released 6 months ago and most likely needs an upgraded computer. And if they don't, it's something that has never happened before and is going to bring linux to the front.

Re:Won't move *now* (1)

HitekHobo (1132869) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058505)

Yup. I've never worked at a company that would blindly jump into a new OS at release or soon after. The only real exception to that are minor revisions and patch levels - and even those take time make it onto hardware that is already running the older OS unless there is a serious problem that the new version addresses.

Give it a year or two and Vista will either be rolling out in businesses or some new 'Vista for business' will be. Someone let me know when they get a job opening at that shop whose IT department rolls out FreeBSD on everyone's desktop and actually supports it.

Re:Won't move *now* (0, Flamebait)

The Cisco Kid (31490) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058549)

I'm an advocate of Free Software and don't use anything from Microsoft, and I absolutely LOVE Vista. Why shouldnt I? More headaches for MS users, more cost, more lock-in, more DRM, less control of your computer, more new 'features' for the trojan and virus writers to play with, without any real benefits other than some new gee-whix eyecandy - more evidence of exactly why MS software is absolute shit.

Vista for Testing Only (1)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058515)

Our company has decided to order a PC with Vista only for software testing purposes; we figure one of our customers is going to run our software on Vista one of these days, so we might as well be prepared for them. That being said, we won't be deploying Vista for our own internal use for quite some time. My box still runs on Windows 2000.

Why share such plans? (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058525)

Letting MS know that the only way they will get you to make a shift to VISTA is if they poke you in the eye with a freshly charged TASER simply means they won't waste time with other methods.

Why even let MS (or any other entity for that matter) know anything about your future business plans? At least make them work for it, sheeshhh.

Question to MS: "What are your business product pricing plans for the future in regards to VISTA?"
MS: "No comment."

Question to business owner: "What are your software purchasing plans for the future in regards to VISTA?"
Business owner: "IT says to hold off for now, however, we've budgeted a 23% increase in software spending starting Q3, extending on an open/per need basis for the remainder of the fiscal year. Can I have my LOLCAT mouse pad now?"

Why not just hand MS a blank check...

Duh! (3, Funny)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058529)

I can't imagine ANYONE using Vista. I tried - honestly - to like it for at least a week. However, when you get screens like the one below, you just have to upgrade to Linux..

http://www.perfectreign.com/stuff/2007/20070519_vi sta_register2.jpg.jpg

No Vista For Us (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20058555)

There is no way our company is going to Vista anytime soon. Not only is it hard to find any of the normal tasks but when you do it takes 1-3 steps more than in XP or 2000. That I can live with. What I cannot live without is the Run AS functionality that has been in Windows since NT 4.0. The Run As defaults to using the Local Admin account and there is no way to change it. I do not allow any of my employees to log into the computer with an Admin account. They can run applications with an admin account by using the Run As command. That no longer works and creates a huge security and management problem. I cannot believe they would let such a simple but criticle thing dissapear. I have inquired with our VAR for our enterprise agreement, no answer. Spoke with a MCT with no resolution.

Their other huge problem is 64bit programs. Even though all new computers have 64bit processors there are very few admin programs that run on a 64bit OS. Also trying to print with a 64 bit OS on a 32bit windows print server is frustrating at best.

Most businesses don't have to anyway (2, Interesting)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058571)

The problem with Vista is not with Vista itself. The migration of Windows XP was reasonable because any pre-existing operating system from Microsoft just didn't cut it. Several years later, XP is so mature and secure that the advantages between XP and Vista are less significant. Had Vista been released in its current state two years ago, I guess Vista would have been an obvious choice.

I have no doubt Vista will become significantly better in a couple of years and narrow the competition with the next-gen Windows, but that's how it should be too. After all, XP and 2K were very similar at first, until service packs and such made XP much better. In the meantime, development of 2K halted, which presented a bigger gap between the two systems. The same will happen with XP and Vista.

Security is no selling point (3, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058601)

Unfortunately. XP is horribly insecure in the default configuration, and few companies have administrators that know enough to make it secure AND useable. Hence the widespread threat of trojans that companies are not even aware of.

A recent survey by websense [websense.com] (unfortunately in German, so rather useless for most people reading here) came up with 98% of companies considering their security "adequate" or better, 53% thinking their security is "very good". 66% of middle management thought that nothing could penetrate their security, their IT guys are rather suspicious, only 25% share the view of their management. Still a lot, if you ask me...

Unfortunately, admins rarely make the decisions when it comes to purchases. They only have to suffer from them.

And the rest of Vista, the eye candy and the fluff, aren't a selling point either for companies. A company doesn't care whether their workers get to "enjoy" their "computing experience" more. Their question is: Does it increase productivity? And the answer is probably no.

Ballmer Shrugs (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#20058651)

So long as enterprises continue to pay their maintenance bills, Microsoft doesn't care whether they upgrade or not. In fact, MS can put XP in "special status" in a year and charge extra on top of maintenance to support it.

Well (2, Informative)

Eisenstein (643326) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058739)

we started last year replacing Windows 2000 with XP in our company. Vista is far away still. Why should any company adapt to a OS before it is tried and tested?

Cant wait forever (2, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058831)

Large business cant wait forever for main 3 reasons:

1 - MOLP will require it after a grace period
2 - soon, you wont be able to buy a pc with XP. And then later you wont be able to get one with XP support ( drivers )
        2a - supporting mixed environments suck, so they will end up upgrading the rest.
3 - new software will eventually require vista.

Re:Cant wait forever (1)

stoicfaux (466273) | more than 7 years ago | (#20059145)

3 - new software will eventually require vista.

What features of Vista allow the creation of Vista only software? DirectX 10 for games is one. But what can cause Vista lock-in for application software?

no matter how much you polish a turd... (0)

llZENll (545605) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058931)

it's still a turd. the problem plaguing windows is they don't ever fix the core problems completely, instead they half ass it and throw on 50 new tools or band aids to help you detect or prevent the problem, just fix the issue and you wont need more tools.

cpus are fast enough these days, they need to finally just go to a whole new root archeticture, and emulate everything that is old. the major problem with this is they will add in a slew of DRM and bullshit that no one needs, it will only make things slower and harder to use, so i guess i would just rather have xp.

I completely see this... (2, Informative)

s31523 (926314) | more than 7 years ago | (#20058961)

Businesses are real slow to adopt new upgrades, especially when the development environment needs to be very stable. In fact, I literally just got a notice that testing is complete and IT will be installing XP Service Pack 2. That is right, service pack 2.

We develop a lot of aerospace software and are required to maintain development environments that can reliably and consistently reproduce software loads over long periods of time (think life of an aircraft). Using a new OS can throw a monkey wrench into older tools, so we are careful to jump on any new OS or whatever. Not that every company has the same issues, but I bet many have similar concerns. After all, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

We're just migrating to XP now... (2, Interesting)

Zed is not Zee (996730) | more than 7 years ago | (#20059137)

This is not really news, is it? I work for an international company of 38,000 employees, i.e. not just a Mom & Pop shop, and we have only recently started moving from W2K to XP.

No complelling security improvements eh? (2, Interesting)

Safiire Arrowny (596720) | more than 7 years ago | (#20059205)

I guess Microsoft will have to leak one of their security flaws to the public/script kids, and not fix it for a few months, but say it doesn't effect Vista in the meantime.

I'm mostly joking.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?