Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Less Than 2 Percent of UK Companies Have Upgraded Windows

Zonk posted more than 6 years ago | from the just-not-that-interesting dept.

Microsoft 200

Rob writes "Computer Business Review is reporting that less than 2% of UK-based firms have already upgraded all their desktops to Windows Vista. Just shy of 5% said that they have begun a Windows Vista desktop upgrade program. 6.5% said they will upgrade in the next 6 months; 12.6% in the next 12 months; 13% in the next 18 months; and 18% in the next two years. That means that within two years from now, only 56% of survey respondents say they will have upgraded their firm's desktops to Windows Vista. 'In terms of retail sales of Vista in a box, Ballmer said he believes most of that up-tick is concentrated in the first few months of the software going on sale. He doubted that this would carry over into Microsoft's fiscal 2008, which began in July 2007. Analyst estimates for fiscal 2008 growth in Microsoft's client business unit, which includes Vista, is around the 9% mark. Ballmer said that analysts should consider that rather than creating huge spurts of new growth "a new Windows release is primarily a chance to sustain the revenue we have".'"

cancel ×

200 comments

How many... (4, Interesting)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695849)

Will downgrade new machines from Vista to XP or some alternative due to the overhead and application support? I know in my office, Vista has been vanishing, replaced by Linux running Wine for the few Windows apps we actually require.

Re:How many... (4, Funny)

dermond (33903) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695891)

going from vista to linux is not a downgrade at all...

Re:How many... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20695997)

Would it be a "sidegrade"?

Re:How many... (4, Interesting)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696157)

Will downgrade new machines from Vista to XP or some alternative due to the overhead and application support? I know in my office, Vista has been vanishing, replaced by Linux running Wine for the few Windows apps we actually require.

I know we are! We rolled out 700+ new workstations this week with Vista pre-installed... and promptly wiped them for our corporate image of XP SP2. What a joke... MS is counting all of these "OEM" sales, but I bet a pretty large proportion of corporate and enterprise "sales" of Vista aren't actually being used.

Re:How many... (3, Insightful)

initdeep (1073290) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696227)

And MS doesn't care because it IS a sale of the Vista OS to the OEM. What the customer does with it after that, they could give two shits about. IF you want to buy a computer from Dell (or any of the OEM's) with Vista (or XP) pre-installed and wipe it to put on another OS (say like Linux...) MS could really care less. They sold the OEM the OS. They got their money. They are happy as pig's in shit. And honestly, the OEM could care less too. It's actually a win for them too. One less unit to worry about supporting.

Re:How many... (5, Funny)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696279)

Couldn't. COULDN'T DAMNIT!!! Will someone please explain logic to the world!!!?!?!? Aieeee!!

Re:How many... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20696331)

did you forget to take your medicine this morning?

I don't see any location in that post where "couldn't" could be put, that the word already there isn't also applicable.

Re:How many... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696475)

I did in fact take my medicine this morning.

"they could give two shits about" shows that they obviously could give something. Couldn't give a shit signifies that they don't care at all. FFS America! >.

Re:How many... (1)

Nevynxxx (932175) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696343)

[ot]

Couldn't. COULDN'T DAMNIT!!! Will someone please explain logic to the world!!!?!?!? Aieeee!!

I've seen it explained, plenty of times, they try to defend it with a "sarcasm" style argument.

[shakes head, wander's off]
[/ot]

Re:How many... (1)

Mikkeles (698461) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696513)

Both are correct and mean the same. Compare with 'cleave'.

Re:How many... (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696891)

No, cleave is a single word with multiple meanings. Could is a word meaning could. It's like saying 0 > 1.

Re:How many... (4, Insightful)

pipatron (966506) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696559)

What the customer does with it after that, they could give two shits about.

That's true for a very short time. Microsoft needs windows to be the dominating platform, at home as in business, otherwise they have nothing, nothing, to compete with. If people start using Linux at home or at work even while paying the windows tax, the same people will probably not want to pay the windows tax much longer, when they notice that a lot of other people are using something else, and that Dell actually has a Linux option as well.

Re:How many... (1)

TrippTDF (513419) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696427)

replying because I meant to mod you "insightful" but hit "Redundant" by mistake...

Re:How many... (1)

blhack (921171) | more than 6 years ago | (#20697277)

Out of curiosity, how did you "promptly" re-image 700+ workstations? Is there some software that will net-boot them all and make it happen? If so, does it update the windows license key and everything when it does? The only thing i can think of that would do this would be netbooting them into a linux distro that grabs an img, pulls it down to each client, then writes and reboots.

Sorry, i know this is TOTALLY off-topic, but really large scale I.T. stuff like that interests me.

OT: Purpose of the subject line (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696305)

Will downgrade new machines from Vista to XP [...]

Nothing personal, it's just that your post is the one I finally decided to comment on. Folks, the subject line is meant to be a terse summary of your post. It is not meant to be the first part of the first sentence in your post.

I had to re-read the sentence fragment above a few times to realize that it was a continuation of what you'd typed in the subject. Many people won't bother and will take that as poor grammar before skipping on to the next message. Free advice: if you want your message to get out, don't do that.

I've been seeing this quite a bit lately and it's irksome. Slashdot has traditionally loosely followed the metaphor of a mailing list, mainly because the crowd that originally made it popular was used to that. There's still a strong influence in that direction. There's no law or rule or FAQ that says it has to be this way, but roughly a decade of practice has made it standard.

Thanks.

It's unfortunate, that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20696499)

One has to read the subject to get the whole sentence... ... Sometimes. (not this post!)
-orangesquid

Yeah I (2, Funny)

rs79 (71822) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696599)

agree.

Form follows function.

At least all the information isn't in the Subject: line with "nc" in the body.

Re:Yeah I (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696643)

At least all the information isn't in the Subject: line with "nc" in the body.

Ugh, yes. Oh, for pattern-matching killfiles on Slashdot. Or for it to get ported to Usenet - either way. :-)

Vista == Micro Channel (2, Interesting)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696585)

How many people remember when IBM was pushing their PS/2 systems, with "Micro Channel" [wikipedia.org] that was going to take over everything? It was better than ISA, self-configuring, etc. - but totally controlled by IBM. People had started buying a lot more clones and not "genuine IBM" PCs. IBM wanted to wrest control of the PC market back from the cloners.

So they fenced in Micro Channel with all kinds of licenses and patents and expected PC manufacturers to beat a path to their door. They didn't. They worked with EISA and VLB and such until PCI came around, and by then IBM was very much an also-ran in the PC market.

I have to say... Vista brings up strong echoes in my mind. It's not an exact parallel but there are a lot of similarities. I think MS's reach is exceeding its grasp here. It happened to IBM (which *owned* computing) and it's starting to happen to MS. Not just the DRM stuff (which is bad enough) but their fixation on (harmful) backward compatibility (which is why UAC is so broken) and their development model being simply not sufficient for managing a codebase of 50+ million lines (they had to throw out features and start over to get Vista shipped at all - years late).

Re:Vista == Micro Channel (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 6 years ago | (#20697251)

I have to say... Vista brings up strong echoes in my mind. It's not an exact parallel but there are a lot of similarities.

For example ?

Not just the DRM stuff (which is bad enough) but their fixation on (harmful) backward compatibility (which is why UAC is so broken) and their development model being simply not sufficient for managing a codebase of 50+ million lines (they had to throw out features and start over to get Vista shipped at all - years late).

Details ? How is UAC "broken" ? Why is it the backwards compatibility that's responsible ?

Re:How many... (1)

cepayne (998850) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696665)

So far VISTA is not giving a lot of positive returns, much like MS stock over the past 2 decades.

Your current apps are not likely to run (correctly, or at all) on Vista, so you need new applications..
which don't yet exist. It would therefore be foolish of industry to install Vista when there are no
supported apps, with exception of the only office product which is somewhat VISTA ready (MS OFFICE 2007)

But that's a whole different argument.

We've had 35% of the students are my university, report to class carrying MACBOOKS. The rest came with
VISTA laden laptops. Vista is not supported on our campus, so guess who is happy?

Re:How many... (1)

Talchas (954795) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696811)

Just from looking around on my university campus, in terms of laptops I too see a ton of macs. Probably the next most common type of hardware I see is the Thinkpad. Of the windows users, I do see a lot of Vista installs, but I also see a significant number of XP ones.

This article says Vista to XP will happen... (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696975)

According to this short news story [bbspot.com] , Microsoft (MS) [microsoft.com] announced that instead of patching bugs and improving features of Windows Vista [microsoft.com] in the next service pack (SP) release, they would just install Windows XP [microsoft.com] . It was due to customers' demands.

[grin]

Windows 2000 (2, Informative)

mrbill1234 (715607) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695861)

I still use Windows 2000 as my windows desktop (when i'm not using a *ix system). Nothing wrong with it - no reason to upgrade.

Re:Windows 2000 (1)

montyzooooma (853414) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696173)

I'm also still using W2k on my desktop. In fact the last time I talked to our Sage support provider they were actively telling us not to upgrade to Vista.

The way the outline is worded it suggests the companies that have "upgraded" to Vista have an actual upgrade policy in place, or is it just that any hardware they're currently buying has Vista installed as default.

Re:Windows 2000 (0)

weicco (645927) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696201)

100% of Windows boxes upgraded to Vista at our home. No reason to keep 7 years old systems around.

0% of Windows XPs upgraded at my work. Damn IT support! May their souls burn in /dev/hell forever for preventing me to use the system that works the best for me!

Re:Windows 2000 (1)

DaleGlass (1068434) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696419)

100% of Windows boxes upgraded to Vista at our home. No reason to keep 7 years old systems around.


What do you mean no reason?
  • After 7 years, it's very solid. Pretty much that needed being fixed has been by now.
  • Memory footprint is small compared to anything newer.
  • It doesn't have activation, big plus for imaging.
  • It doesn't have restrictions against running it in vmware.
  • It doesn't have an interface desiged by Fisher Price.
  • It doesn't have compatibility issues.
  • It's got very good performance even on less than up to date hardware. It's plain stupid to get a box with 2GB RAM for a system that will run a single application that was made to run on a P133 with 64MB RAM and still does.


From the IT perspective, Vista is a pain in the butt. Here I'm staying with Win2K so long it can run on new hardware at all. Don't expect to upgrade to even XP before 2010 the earliest. Vista, probably never. The thing to come after XP (if I upgrade to that) will most likely be Linux. Also pretty much everything that comes with the OS is completely unnecessary. If the app ran on Linux what we'd have instead on most boxes would be X + The Application, and nothing else.

Re:Windows 2000 (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696557)

No reason to keep 7 years old systems around.

Huh? On what base do you say that? A 7 year old machine would be constructed in 2000, and as such be a P-III class machine. I know, I still have my P-III 800MHz with 768Meg RAM. Sure, it doesn't run Windows anymore, but it's rock stable and runs my parents network.

My last laptop was a P-III 600MHz with 512Meg RAM... It ran Windows XP SP2 just fine, and most the the productivity applications I needed. Sure, no (new) games, but OpenOffice 2.x, iTunes, The GIMP, Firefox 1.5.x, Thunderbird 1.5.x, Eclipse 3.0, etc ran perfectly fine on it.... I replaced it this year in January. Why did I replace it? Not because I actually needed more power, but only because I mistreated that machine so much that it was physically falling apart.

P-III class machines with enough memory are fine productivity machines.

Re:Windows 2000 (3, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696399)

Ditto. At home, I use Windows 2000 virtualized under QEMU with the kqemu virtualizer on Ubuntu, and let me tell you -- no other Windows OS runs as well...it has much lower overhead than even XP, supports virtually all apps that have been released since Windows XP, and it runs nice and fast -- near-native speed -- under QEMU/kqemu on reasonably modern hardware.

Works great for the handful of Windows apps that I still use.

Re:Windows 2000 (1)

MyLongNickName (822545) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696447)

I used 2000 Server at home and XP at work. I can't even get my damn iPAQ to sync with Vista. I have issues with "Windows Explorer has stopped working" issues when copying files from external data stores to my PC. Picasa was causing blue screens until I uninstalled some Dell software.

Some of this could be third party vendor (copying files oughtn't be). But Windows 'Just Works(tm)'. When it fails to do this, it has no edge over Linux.

Just moved from Win2k to XP (1)

name_already_taken (540581) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696815)

I've used Win2k since the Corporate Preview Program, but its time has passed.

I have a few systems in the office still using Windows 2000 (we just got rid of our last NT4 system last month), but last week we had a hard drive crash in one of them. I took the opportunity to install Windows XP SP2 on it yesterday and reinstalled the same few (3) applications on it.

The same applications are running noticeably faster. I'm not sure why, since this system really didn't have a lot of clutter on it before, and it was kept pretty clean (we don't allow users to install anything and the drive was defragmented regularly). This system is used for just one task so it was easy to keep it clean; on top of that the hardware is basically the same (apart from having a new same-speed hard drive). It's possible that XP has more performance optimizations particularly in the UI - I don't really know.

Not only that but perhaps more importantly, XP is still actively supported by Microsoft, so as more vulnerabilities are found in Windows, there's a better chance of MS releasing a patch - Win2K is not as actively supported by MS because it's no longer a money maker for them (i.e. you can still buy XP, but you can't buy Win2k).

No wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20695863)

Vista... sucks...

Upgrade?? (4, Funny)

olddoc (152678) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695885)

The box said requires Windows 2000 or better so I installed Linux!

Re:Upgrade?? (1)

allcar (1111567) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696237)

I recently had a situation where a perfectly legally licensed version of XP Pro failed the "Genuine Advantage" test. I carried on using the machine for a while, as I could not be bothered to address the problem. Eventually, though the nagging became more and more insistent, so I started browsing the relevant pages on the M$ website. It all sounded like a lot of hassle, but they insisted that I must resolve the issue. I did - by installing Ubuntu.

This is news? (2, Insightful)

nofrak (889021) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695887)

Isn't it obvious that a business would wait until the new system is firmly established before beginning the costly and time-consuming task of upgrading and retraining (to whatever extent that's necessary)?

Re:This is news? (3, Insightful)

arivanov (12034) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696127)

Not necessarily. Company IT departments grabbed W2K the way starving people grab hot bread. Win XP did not cause even a fraction of the same enthusiasm. And as far as Vista is concerned most company IT shops look at it as consumerware.

Re:This is news? (2, Insightful)

HateBreeder (656491) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696211)

That's because, windows 2K was the first (Microsoft) usable operating system intended for desktops. (Windows NT was targeted at servers) Its predecessor Win9X is perhaps responsible for the majority of Microsofts notorious reputation regarding stability and security.

Re:This is news? (4, Insightful)

quantum bit (225091) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696451)

NT was also targeted at high-end workstations, though where I work we used it for all desktops. It was pretty painful on laptops, and 2000 was a HUGE improvement in that area. Even then NT4 was better than anything 9x-based.

2000 was a Real Big Deal. There were a lot of major improvements and very little downside. Slightly higher memory footprint than NT4, but nothing unreasonable. Every release since then has either been mostly cosmetic changes (XP), minor incremental improvements (Server 2003), or huge bloated useless "features" that you pay a heavy price for (Vista).

Vista also sucks because the corporate bulk-license version requires activation now. The only thing that made XP tolerable was not having to deal with any of that activation/WGA BS.

Re:This is news? (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696505)

That's because, windows 2K was the first (Microsoft) usable operating system intended for desktops. (Windows NT was targeted at servers) Its predecessor Win9X is perhaps responsible for the majority of Microsofts notorious reputation regarding stability and security"

I call bullshit. Set up two boxes, one xp and one 98 then put them on the net. See which one gets pwnded first.

While I work with FreeBSD I have some windows boxen at home. Reinstalling fucked up or pwned XP is just rohutine. My 98 box runs for weeks without rebooting and has zero anti malware crap and has never in 9 years ever caught a virus or anyting similar ever.

It really was flakey drivers that made 98 look bad. XP walks around going "I'm here, infect me, I'm wide open baby".

Re:This is news? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20696573)

No one targets 9x anymore. The world moved on.

Re:This is news? (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 6 years ago | (#20697095)

"Usable" can mean different things to different people. Your meaning seems to be "secure via network".
Others may choose the ability to work with enterprise networks (such as logging in to a domain), reasonable multi-tasking, stability, etc.

Win98 is hardly an "enterprise / corporate desktop" OS in any way, shape, or form. There is no local security AT ALL. At least it's a LITTLE harder to access an NT based (NT, 2K, XP, etc.) box locally without a valid userid and PW. It can be made quite a bit harder on modern systems with proper BIOS settings / BIOS security (not impossible by any means however.) USB support is also a big win for newer systems (and better file systems, etc.)

98 may be fine for you, but it doesn't live up to my definition of usable at all.

Re:This is news? (1)

arivanov (12034) | more than 6 years ago | (#20697301)

It was also nearly impossible to roll out centralised settings to either 98 or NT. Same for centralised remote management. Win2K was light years ahead of them when it came up with respect to this. One could actually try to put at least some mandatory or optional settings onto a network without half of the machines refusing to boot any more. WinXP did not improve anything on this. As far as Vista is concerned, Vista could have been a huge potential improvement for corporates if the idiots at Redmond geared the DRM towards corporate use and putting in proper crypto based control onto documents when paired with Office 2007. Unfortunately they cocked it up. They decided to endulge in some naso-rectal interfacing with a mouse instead. They are getting whatever they deserve now. The mouse no matter how loud and abnoxious is much smaller than those customers that could have make use of Vista's+Office crypto/DRM and force it down everyone's throat. Now they get whatever they deserve.

Re:This is news? (1)

ZwJGR (1014973) | more than 6 years ago | (#20697209)

The Win9x OSs will do better on the web, simply because nobody targets them anymore.

I would take any NT based OS over a Win9x anyday, simply because of the screwed up memory architecture.
In effect MS implemented the win9xs upside-down, with the 32 bit layer on top, the 16-bit layer in the middle, and DOS at the bottom. This throws in all sorts of arbitrary resource limitations, and performance issues, when using 32-bit apps. As they have to thunk down to a 16-bit segmented layer to get anything done, which meant that really you were running an extended windows 3.1.
Whereas in WinNT both the DOS and 16-bit layers go away, and reappear as sensibly contained virtual-mode/emulated subsystems. Which means that the 32-bit layer can just sit on the hardware, without having to tortuously filter down through legacy holdovers. (There are problems in winxp as well, but in general you have to try quite hard, or install 3rd party shit drivers to actually crash the machine to a blue screen, I haven't seen one for about a year, when I installed some crap nVidia northbridge drivers, which required a reinstallation of windows :( )

Further-more in win98, badly written apps (not even drivers) could crash the OS completely.

I once made an error in a user-mode 32-bit app I was writing, stack underflow, win98: BSOD, winxp: a little box telling you how your program failed to comply with the rules. Once I even managed to crash/hang a win98 box to a black screen by (accidentally) not saving edi in a window procedure. XP couldn't care less.

I know what I'm talking about here, my Mother, to this day, runs Win98 on her desktop, and XP on her laptop.
---

As for internet security, XP is really OK if you just turn off DCOM, half of the services, and install a competent firewall (ZoneAlarm), I don't even run antivirus on this (winxp) box. (Although I do have dozens of utilities, ie. Process Explorer, rootkit revealer, advanced process termination, etc., to spot and delete any suspiciousness if I notice that something has managed to get on; nothing has ever got on this box since I inherited it 1.5 years ago).

--

Note, I am not an M$ fanboy.
This box is a dual-boot/colinux combo with Slackware 12.0...

Ambiguous results (3, Interesting)

matt me (850665) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695901)

'In the next six months' is a subset of 'in the next year', which is a subset of 'in the next 18 months', a subset of 'in the next two years'.

So what? In two years will 20% of business be running Vista, or 50%?

Re:Ambiguous results (3, Insightful)

Delusion_ (56114) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696005)

Mass Vista upgrades will occur when the problems of supporting Vista are eclipsed by the problems of supporting XP.

Right now, the main problem with supporting XP is making sure you can actually get it on new OEM hardware.

The main problem with supporting Vista is user resistance to UI changes, a very pushy security system without enough tangible benefits to justify it, increased memory footprint (as with every Windows upgrade) and drivers, drivers, drivers.

I suspect there will be a few legacy XP machines at a lot of offices that move to Vista, simply because there's a lot of office hardware that's fairly expensive, and whose manufacturers don't consider it a priority to update drivers for - specialty printers (wide format, high throughput small format) come to mind. If you've got a $7K-35K printer, odds are keeping it running in XP is a more attractive option than buying a new one merely because the manufacturer won't write a Vista driver for an eight year old machine that's still working like a champ.

Re:Ambiguous results (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696807)

Right now, the main problem with supporting XP is making sure you can actually get it on new OEM hardware.

Not really. Any significantly sized business will have a company-wide license which allows up/downgrades from any version of Windows to any other version of Windows. And no company of significant size will even use the PC as it arrived from the factory unless "from the factory" means "From the Dell factory using the custom software build we provided". There's likely to be shedloads of crapware on them that you don't want, and it'll be missing the software that you do want.

The main problem with supporting XP will be when drivers for common hardware are no longer available.

Re:Ambiguous results (2, Insightful)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696829)

If you have more than about 50 people in your company, it's pretty easy to have an Open / Select license and buy your machines with no OS. It's much harder for smaller companies however (as all the machines available to you come pre-loaded - usually with Vista now.)

Of course some newer hardware is now coming out that does not HAVE drivers for anything other than XP, but that's another issue altogether.

I'd really like to see MS forbidden from agreements that require bundling a LICENSE with OEM machines. I don't mind if they ship pre-loaded with an unactivated copy that you can LATER purchase a key and activate, or OPTIONALLY buy a key for it that ships at the same time, but they (and system OEM's) should be forbidden requiring you to purchase a license for windows just to buy the hardware. This would be a huge win for volume license customers who don't NEED the OEM copy, but end up paying for it anyway. It would also help restore competition to the OS market which is effectively nil at the moment.

Re:Ambiguous results (1)

leehwtsohg (618675) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696269)

I will upgrade to vista..
(a) already have
(b) in next 6 months
(c) in next 12 months
(d) in next 18 months
(e) in next 24 months
(f) when hell freezes over
(g) what do you mean "upgrade"?

Re:Ambiguous results (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20696377)

Wow, did you know your name is an anagram of Ghost Wheel?

Investors will slow Windows releases. (2, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695911)

The one thing about capitalism is that it is actually not very kind to monopolies. Investors value growth, above all else, and want to put their capital where growth of the business is most. MS can get some rate of return on existing Windows licensing, but, that's not nearly the same as doubling the size of your business from new customers every year or so, and Wall Street knows it. This influences development decisions at companies - there's no point in investing in something, if its not going to move the price of the shares. At this point, Windows is a good business, but all Microsoft can really do in the OS point is stay put or lose.

Re:Investors will slow Windows releases. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20696107)

True, but the thing about wall street is that it caters to growth. Anybody who traeds on their dollar (like googles) has to grow or die? So ... who do you trust? I like the competition but marketing seems to really make it difficult to compete on the level playing field. How is it that orginisations can manage to spend do much on advertising at the expense of QC and never fall down? I would buy a coca cola car or clothes... how do they do it?

Ha! Ha! Ha! (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696383)

The one thing about capitalism is that it is actually not very kind to monopolies

Funniest and least factual thing I've read all morning. Thanks for that. Actually, capitalism is kindest of all to monopolies. History has repeatedly and universally shown that unregulated markets quickly evolve to monopolies. End of story.

Investors value growth, above all else
Wrong again. In general, investors (the kind with 100's of millions) want ROI. ROI is achieved a number of different ways, one of them is the appreciation in value of the stock, another is a dividend, another is interest on debt.

I don't care for Microsoft's business practices one bit, but you'll notice none of the investors are running for the exits. The stock still returns well above average for the category, much less the market in general. As much as ./'ers love to hate Microsoft, they aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

I'm sure you've noticed the number of posts with grammar corrections sprinkled throughout the summaries. I try to correct lazy/wrong economic thinking on /.

Re:Ha! Ha! Ha! (1)

tjstork (137384) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696543)

Funniest and least factual thing I've read all morning. Thanks for that. Actually, capitalism is kindest of all to monopolies. History has repeatedly and universally shown that unregulated markets quickly evolve to monopolies. End of story.

Ah, no. Look at the stocks of all monopolies outside of MS. Utilitiy stocks, for example, pay a decent dividend but aren't really where you want to put money, if you want growth. People that invest in those kinds of stocks are looking for something to mix with bonds for a more guaranteed rate of return, rather than growth. There's a place for that, but, if you want to invest a $1000, and get a $1,000,000 back, you don't want to invest in MS today, but twenty years ago, you would. Now, you want to take that $1000 and invest in someone making a viable competitor to MS. I guarantee that a company with a successful product, with significant growth against MS, would attract a lot of new capital, and tend to pull capital away from MS. Just look at what happened to all the "unnatural" monopolies - like IBM, GM, US Steel, AT&T and so forth. Only IBM is really healthy, while GM is so so, and US Steel and AT&T have huge problems. They got huge, made everyone a ton of money, then investors took their money and put them into new companies.

Yeah Except... (1)

mpapet (761907) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696803)

"unnatural" monopolies
There is no such thing. There are monopolies, oligopolies, duopolies and a few other well-researched market conditions.

IBM, GM, US Steel, AT&T
None of those were/are monopolies. There are monopolies in international cargo shipping (the big-boat kind), international communications, and an operating system developer called Microsoft.

Re:Yeah Except... (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696971)

...AT&T None of those were/are monopolies. There are monopolies in international cargo shipping (the big-boat kind), international communications, and an operating system developer called Microsoft.
The US govt. would beg to differ [wikipedia.org]

No surprise (3, Informative)

PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695915)

Given that there hasn't been a hard push for Vista for U.K. businesses (and that some vendors have been encouraging their customers to wait [zdnet.co.uk] ), this is not a particularly big surprise. It's just too risky while Vista is this new.

If you take a risk with a new operating system at home and it doesn't work out, you may be out some cash. If you did it across your business, you may be out of a job (and a company, for that matter!).

Sadly (1)

DeeVeeAnt (1002953) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695929)

This means only 44% of IT departments have a clue.

Can you blame them really? (4, Interesting)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 6 years ago | (#20695969)

The operating system is getting a very bad reception in the press and from the influential types (us guys) in IT
See my thoughts below.
(yes, this is a re-post, unreplied to though and obviously on topic)

When I tried Vista it forced my Dell 8600 laptop to run it's fan in stage 2 of 3 instead of 1/3 that XP does, somewhere CPU use was too high, no matter what I turned off (Aero etc) - on battery or powered.

The interface isn't for me, I couldn't possibly care less about a fluffy 3D interface, I've never used XP's Luna theme and I've been using XP since 6 months after release, I need a functional fast operating system with clever powerful features, I don't 'watch' my OS I use it to get stuff done.

Another reason why I don't want Aero is I do a hell of a lot of RDP'ing and you can't get Aero over RDP.
I would find switching from Vista classic (or XP classic) to Aero, to classic to Aero when switching in and out of my RDP sessions to be very disorientating.

ALSO Aero seemed to offer no real actual benefits to usability, sadly I have to admit after using Mac OSX that the whole expose thing is surprisingly awesome and convienient, that operating system truely makes a mouse user damn near as powerful as a good keyboarder (wow!)
Aero's flip 3D however was ridiculously bad at actually saving you time and effort.

The widget thing / bar on the right was stupid, it should be like Mac OS - it's there, when you need it, hidden and very easily accessable, NOT a bar stuck on the side (auto hide or not, Mac OS wins that)

The search functionality wasn't as good as locate32, I think in file names, not in contents, if I want my CV I search for *resume*.doc on all drives and I'll find it because I memorise the file name (admitedly locate32 isn't native to XP)

Therefore overall Vista didn't offer me anything that honestly helped me.
I used a full retail version of Ultimate and manage to re-produce a bug where connecting to a VPN would instantly blue screen it too (fully patched)

I dislike the smaller 'stylish' min / max / close buttons at the top right, I like them square and easy to find.

Did I mention Windows Explorer sucked? I spend 80% of my time in it, managing files, doing 'stuff' and it's hard to explain but there was a lack of 'lines' and dividers and bars, the data was hard to take in quickly because the interface looked,... weird I couldn't do things quicker with that, the line showing left pane / right pane sucked.
I think (don't quote me) it forced that silly task pane on as well, which is on in XP but disable-able - I don't think you can in Vista (don't quote)

I disliked the breadcrumb style address bar in folders at the top of explorer, admitedly just today someone found a home made patch to disable it but it's not a stock option in Vista and wasn't available when I tried it.

When all is said and done, I would STILL use the thing if someone just made a shell replacement that made it look absoloutely 100% identical to XP classic mode but with a Vista 'engine'. I don't hate DX10 nor do I detest the search, I can always use my own, I don't have to use flip 3d but I do CONSTANTLY use Windows explorer and I need it looking nice, simple and clean to do shit fast, - I felt hamstrung :/

Re:Can you blame them really? (1)

allthefish (1158249) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696075)

There's really no surprise there, Vista is just not that great an operating system. There's not very much innovation it offers; M$ seems to be relying on their monopoly to keep making money.

Really, all that Vista is is XP, but buggier and with more chrome. Yes, chrome is shiny, which is generally a good thing, but not when it hides the fact that there's little to offer customers. There's no substance there. I'd take a minimal GUI on a functional OS than a pretty piece of OS crap any day.

Re:Can you blame them really? (1)

Delusion_ (56114) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696095)

Did I mention Windows Explorer sucked?

Off topic suggestion - Directory Opus (gpsoft.com.au) is an extremely functional and customizable explorer replacement. I feel like I'm explorerizing with mittens on when I'm on systems without it. It may or may not resolve your Explorer issues, but it's worth a close look in any event.

(Just a DOpus fanboi, not a GPSoft employee.)

Re:Can you blame them really? (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696837)

I hear opus is good, I'm a Ztree man myself but the problem is that it's not a stock application.
Much like I mentioned with Aero not following you into RDP - I find switching apps / interfaces to do things annoying, this is probably partially the reason I've weaned myself off Xtree and back to Explorer.

I need that consistency, I need to sit at bobs PC or mary's or dad's or mom's - etc etc and they all work the same, besides details view / thumbnails, XP explorer offers this.
Well so does Vista - it's built in too but yeah it's just ghastly ugly.

Re:Can you blame them really? (3, Interesting)

dave420 (699308) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696273)

My experience is pretty much completely the opposite to yours. I first got Vista a few months ago, and it's fantastic. Maybe it's the 4GB of memory, but it flies along. It's running two 22" monitors, and it's the fastest OS I've seen.

Explorer is great - sure it's different from XP, but it works perfectly for me. You can turn the left pane off, the breadcrums disappear if you click (giving you the ability to type your own addresses in, or copy the current one to the keyboard, or use the mouse to quickly jump from one directory to another.) The detail view works exactly the same as it does on XP, so I didn't have a problem with being slowed down after the change to Vista. Aero does add useful functionality, such as live thumbnails in the alt-tab and the task bar. Flip 3D also has its uses, though I can see it's not for everyone.

You can turn the sidebar off and just have gadgets on your desktop if you want. You don't have to use it if you don't want to. I have a lot of screen real-estate, so I have a clock, CPU monitor, disk space monitor, and a gadget I knocked up to track my torrent downloads at home.

So I'm having a great time with Vista. All the software I want to use works fine with it, performance is through the roof, and I like the interface. I guess it's not for everyone :)

Re:Can you blame them really? (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696827)

I have 4gb of memory on my desktop, admitedly performance issues are mostly gone there but the interface is still the lingering issues.

Firstly and frankly, fuck clicking the breadcrumbs, - they suck, period.
(Breadcrumbs done right on a web page? excellent - implimentation in Vista? feels wrong)

Explorer isn't great - it's cluttered, there's drop downs here, buttons there, it's a convolouted mess of epic proportions.
You're speaking to an ex z-tree / xtree user, I need to do shit quick, I use explorer (yes I know Ztree is better) quite often and I just simply find the visual look of vista explorer difficult to get information to my brain fast enough, it's just too messy.

Sidebar off, I know - but it's still useless compared to the apple offering which is actually useful - it's not there at all and it's there instantly when you need it.
(I'm in NO WAY a mac fanboy either, far from it)

Aero's live thumnails in the alt tab menu if I recall also suck.
Don't quote me on this but iirc a super fast alt tab simply doesn't register, same as the alt tab replacement powertoy for XP.
For high speed users swapping BAM one app to another this is very annoying to hold the key that .1 of a second longer.

I actually found several bugs and inconsistencies with the interface when I used it last, an example (may be incorrect - it's been 3 weeks sorry)
I like to use details view, with status bar on all folders - I set this but when I click my computer the look and feel on the right in explorer changes - it doesn't show the drive letters on the right
(or perhaps I'm thinking of when I click on desktop?)
Either way, it wouldn't stay consistent, showing folders, shortcuts and files on the right and in details view always - XP does this.

Also while I'm at it, a small nitpick but the replacement boot loader screws stuff up.
Acronis true image and disk director (the new ghost, by far) do not work properly with a vista dual boot drive, cloning the disk simply fails (going into the same machine just diff hard disk)

Ultimately I find Vista begins to clarify what all the linux, mac and general Microsoft haters have been saying over the years.
While I sympathise with XP and enjoy it (oh oh!) I really genuinely find Vista's UI to be honestly a mess, as if not only 100's of people worked on it but they didn't discuss it or keep it consistent.

Finally, Windows XP (if you're a Windows user) is reliable and simple, it's fast and frankly, besides DX10 and some other small things, it 'does it all' for most of your users, home and office.
Really how is adoption going to pick up when most users need MS Word, IE or Firefox, Printing, Burning, Downloading and connecting their digital camera / playing mp3's - that's all most people need.
(it's probably been said before about 2K or 98, I won't deny)

All that said, glad you're enjoying it, page me when it's decent :/

Re:Can you blame them really? (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696953)

gadget I knocked up to track my torrent downloads at home

Cheery picking your post - any chance you will share this code?

Also, I'm in agreement over vista. I run it on my laptop and haven't had any problems with it so far, the interface is clean and driver support was there.

Re:Can you blame them really? (1)

SpryGuy (206254) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696355)

I agree about Windows Explorer. Even worse, the "expand/collapse node" controls are invisible until you mouse over! Ugh.

But I have to say, given everything else, the most annoying thing about Vista that I have to deal with constantly is the response time. Invariably, when I click the 'close window' button, I can count to at least three before the window actually closes. And this is on a 3.5Gb machine with a fast hyperthreading processor and a very decent video card (if it's more than good enough for Half-Life 2 ...) The machine is no slouch.

There are many things I do like... small changes here and there (like when renaming a file, it auto-selects just the filename, not filename and extension) that I find beneficial. But too many things were just "change, for change's sake" without fitting into an over-arching philosophy that justified the change. And there's too much inconsistency, because they never really finished the redesign. They didn't touch "old" dialogs and applications, and some things are half-changed.

I was hoping Service Pack One would resolve all these fit-and-finish issues, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

And while tons of work was done in the kernal and under the hood to improve performance and scalability and responsiveness... the GUI implementation just craps out all over it. It feels sluggish. Especially when windows don't snap closed the moment you click that button.

They really do need to come out with a "refresh" that basically finishes the job they started, and optimzes the hell out of things. I, like you, am getting sick of my desktop's fan spinning up constantly, and even more so when I'm NOT using the machine, because of all the background stuff going on.

Thankfully, VirtualPC 2007 is a free download, for anything I want to do in other OS's. I do have one application that I need to run that refuses to run under Vista (Microsoft's own SQL Server 2000) -- I run that under Virtual PC in an XP virtual machine. Piece of cake. :-)

Re:Can you blame them really? (1)

bogie (31020) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696431)

"ALSO Aero seemed to offer no real actual benefits to usability,"

They copied OS X from top to bottom,well at least they tried to anyway, why didn't they clone Expose? It is patently absurd that the only "wow moment" they offered at launch was Flip-3D. I mean are you serious? And moving wallpaper is a Vista Ultimate only feature? More then one person must have quit at Vista over what lame eye-candy features shipped with Vista at launch.

Vista Premium should at a minimum shipped with moving wallpaper, an expose clone, and a host of other useless but mind blowing effects. No scratch that, not useless, put those billions to work and make them mind blowing AND useful. I mean Christ justify those system requirements and give us something that makes using the computer fun. After setting the bar so high hardware-wise the least they could have done is come out with something that after 6 years of development time made us go WOW. Again there must have been more then a few engineers freaking out about how sterile and unimpressive Vista was at launch.

Re:Can you blame them really? (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696637)

Another reason why I don't want Aero is I do a hell of a lot of RDP'ing and you can't get Aero over RDP.
Really? I'm kind of surprised by that, I know on Linux Compiz will still work over VNC (at least using x11vnc server).

Actually all of your complains sound like you're a candidate for trying Linux:

ALSO Aero seemed to offer no real actual benefits to usability, sadly I have to admit after using Mac OSX that the whole expose thing is surprisingly awesome and convienient, that operating system truely makes a mouse user damn near as powerful as a good keyboarder (wow!)
Aero's flip 3D however was ridiculously bad at actually saving you time and effort.
Compiz's Scale plugin works like expose, you also have a choice of 4 task switchers.

The search functionality wasn't as good as locate32, I think in file names, not in contents, if I want my CV I search for *resume*.doc on all drives and I'll find it because I memorise the file name (admitedly locate32 isn't native to XP)
Again lots of choices, I use Beagle and Deskbar, which can search by file name or content (and even non-files like email or IM sessions).

I dislike the smaller 'stylish' min / max / close buttons at the top right, I like them square and easy to find.
Linux has more window decoration styles than you can shake a stick at, including knockoffs of Windows Classic, Luna, Aero and MacOSX.

I disliked the breadcrumb style address bar in folders at the top of explorer, admitedly just today someone found a home made patch to disable it but it's not a stock option in Vista and wasn't available when I tried it.
Nautilus (Gnome's file manager) has both, with a simple button to change between breadcrumbs and text field.

Re:Can you blame them really? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696741)

Aero does work over RDP, but only between Vista machines; you can't use it from anything else. Compiz will be appalling over VNC unless you have very good network, however with a recent X.org release containing working AIGLX support (or an old SGI workstation), it will work nicely over remote X11.

Re:Can you blame them really? (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696935)

Compiz will be appalling over VNC unless you have very good network, however with a recent X.org release containing working AIGLX support (or an old SGI workstation), it will work nicely over remote X11.
Performance over VNC isn't that much different than without compiz, at least that's my experience over my local network. The biggest difference is that you can't use XDamage, which I think makes for polling larger screen areas, but other than that it's fine. Some animation effects you won't see, because they happen faster than the usual VNC refresh, but you don't really miss them. I'm sure running a remote X application on a local X server running compiz would work fine, but as I use VNC from a Windows box, that's not really an option for me.

Re:Can you blame them really? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#20697217)

Have you tried X.org 7.3 yet? Eric Anholt wrote an extension a few months back which should allow GL applications to accurately report damage. I think it made it into 7.3. If so, VNC should be able to take advantage of it.

The Cygwin X server seems to be based on x.org 6.8 (as is Apple's X11), so doesn't get any of the new shiny, so sadly that's not an option for you.

Re:Can you blame them really? (1)

HappyUserPerson (954699) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696937)

Switcher [live.com] is an Expose clone for Windows Vista/Aero; it beats Expose in many ways -- type to find a Window, more layout options, lots of settings.

Re:Can you blame them really? (1)

Penguin Follower (576525) | more than 6 years ago | (#20697249)

ALSO Aero seemed to offer no real actual benefits to usability, sadly I have to admit after using Mac OSX that the whole expose thing is surprisingly awesome and convienient, that operating system truely makes a mouse user damn near as powerful as a good keyboarder (wow!)
Aero's flip 3D however was ridiculously bad at actually saving you time and effort.

Expose is an excellent example of useful eye candy. And I can't wait for Leopard and spaces. Finally, I get my multiple desktops like *NIX but on MacOS X and it comes with added Apple style. (And a really easy way to move apps from one space to another. Drag & Drop!)

The widget thing / bar on the right was stupid, it should be like Mac OS - it's there, when you need it, hidden and very easily accessable, NOT a bar stuck on the side (auto hide or not, Mac OS wins that)

Another of my favorite functional eye candy examples. Dashboard kicks the crap out of the Windows side^H^H^H^Hlame bar.

Eek! I'm sounding like a Mac Fanboy. But, the fact is that since I bought a Mac back in April it's been nothing but a pleasure to use. My PCs now run Linux, and I do all multimedia and work on MacOS X. The only Windows computer in the house is the corporate supplied Dell laptop, because my day job happens to be supporting Windows environments (it pays the bills).

Deja Vu (2, Insightful)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696013)

Computer Business Review is reporting that less than 2% of UK-based firms have already upgraded all their desktops to Windows Vista. Just shy of 5% said that they have begun a Windows Vista desktop upgrade program. 6.5% said they will upgrade in the next 6 months; 12.6% in the next 12 months; 13% in the next 18 months; and 18% in the next two years

Didn't we all see a similar article like this back when XP was introduced?

We all know that businesses work on a far slower cycle than the consumer market - hell, it was only two years ago that my work computer (I'm not in IT) moved from Windows 2000 to Windows XP.

Based on that timescale (5 years), I don't expect to move to Vista till 2009...

Re:Deja Vu (1)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696205)

New software = Bad New service pack = Good

This is meaningless. (2, Insightful)

Vlad_the_Inhaler (32958) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696019)

What were the adoption figures in the early days of Win2K (which brought native USB support) or XP? Probably just as poor - at least in the case of XP.

None of the companies I have worked for recently have been quick to adopt a new level of Windows. Anyone who expects large companies to leap aboard the Vista bandwagon now is simply deluded. The standard 'wisdom' is that Vista will only start to catch on in a corporate environment once SP1 has been released.

I just added a Vista notebook to my collection (2, Informative)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696051)

This past week I picked up my first Vista notebook (on purpose). All our previous workstations were either XP or Vista replaced by XP -- and our clients are also XP. But in the past month, I've noticed quite a few clients running Vista on their notebooks they bring in from home, and that's usually a deciding factor for near-term upgrades.

My company has a "Not till 2008" stance on Vista. I've had horrible experiences with it and third party apps since its release, which is expected. The last week since running Vista, I have to say that the interface does LOOK nicer, but it is counter-intuitive for those who are used to the old keyboard commands to get to places. I'm sure its an easy transition, but I can't figure out the benefits, yet.

Here's the downside: while I don't see any efficiency, the few clients who are choosing to stick with it are doing so because of the cool factor. When I explain to them that the 0.25 second "pauses" for all the flashiness (which can be disabled, of course) add up to a 1/2 hour a day in lost productivity, they don't care: it just looks cool! Engineers and designers we work with hate it, but the managements and CxOs that are our primary market love it. Ugh. Vista: The Ferrari of Operating Systems, and just as costly to repair when it breaks down, often.

Re:I just added a Vista notebook to my collection (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696189)

The company I work for's main application doesn't work correctly with Vista. We only know that because client/tester told us so. We have -no- internal Vista machines and no plans to upgrade or support it yet. To be fair, our only XP machines are for compatibility and testing purposes. We're mostly OSX and I've got the only remaining Linux desktop.

But that's not why I was replying... It's this:

"When I explain to them that the 0.25 second "pauses" for all the flashiness (which can be disabled, of course) add up to a 1/2 hour a day in lost productivity, they don't care"

A happy worker is a productive worker. If you save that 1/2 hour a day and the employee is constantly wishing for the fancy interface they -know-they could have, you are probably losing productivity, not gaining.

Re:I just added a Vista notebook to my collection (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696249)

A happy worker is a productive worker. If you save that 1/2 hour a day and the employee is constantly wishing for the fancy interface they -know-they could have, you are probably losing productivity, not gaining.

I've spent _years_ researching desktop productivity (not in scientific environments, though) and while this may be true, I find that workers tend to be more happy in the long run by having things work as fast as they can. A slower PC worker may not notice a difference, but someone who has used PC efficiently for decades tends to be able to knock things out quicker if they don't have the micropauses that many PCs have. Many people don't even notice these pauses, but more often than not people have commented how fast my notebooks are when they use them. My loaner notebooks (I loan them out freely to clients who need them for short term projects) are generally older PCs -- 2-4 years old, but they fly because they're properly tweaked to only run what is needed, with the most stable drivers, and are clean-swept after every loan period. It isn't the overall speed of the units that matter when it comes to "Wow that's fast!" but reducing those micropauses that are easy to miss, but also easy to see when you work on a relatively stable PC.

I've had good luck with XP when it is installed properly, without the overhead of most installations. I also go out on a limb and don't run real-time virus or spyware scanners, because I include a full-restore DVD with each loaner (if someone screws up the PC, the reinstall is very fast). I would not be surprised if my more efficient clients save up to an hour a day over the micro and slightly longer pauses that they have on their regular PCs (because of all the junk software, clutter and faulty drivers they're using). When I've played with Vista, those pauses come significantly more often, or are built into the OS as a "feature."

Give me menus and prompts that appear instantly, not in fast slow-motion.

Re:I just added a Vista notebook to my collection (1)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696697)

I can't argue with 'efficient people want it to go fast', but anyone asking for the visual effects, especially knowing the cost, don't really care about fast. They are efficient to begin with, and the slowdown probably won't change enough to matter.

I've done the 'speed is better' thing myself. I installed Beryl and all that razzmatazz but ended up removing it because it was slower (special effects take time, even with no pauses or stutters) and because it crashed too often. (Every couple hours.) It was neat, it just wasn't useful.

Re:I just added a Vista notebook to my collection (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696359)

Vista: The Ferrari of Operating Systems, and just as costly to repair when it breaks down, often.

Well, except that Ferraris are small and lean and desirable. Other than that, sure.

80s kit car, I'm thinking (1)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696725)

Your post made a point I was thinking of: Vista's no Ferrari, in more ways than that.

It reminds me more of one of those fancy looking kit cars from the 70s & 80s, which looked at a distance like some exotic Lambo/Delorean crossbreed, but when they drove by you could tell that it was a fiberglass body on a VW bug chassis with the original air-cooled bug engine whining in protest at the weight of all that fiberglass and plastic. The rattles and squeaks were also amusing.

Vista may be the "Ultimate Extreme Super-Mega" version of Windows, but under the Areoglass body, it's still got that VW engine.

more MS doom and gloom (1)

MooseTick (895855) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696077)

Perhaps the business masses have yet to migrate to Vista. Well, there still isn't a service pack out for it yet and I believe MANY businesses waited for SP1 to be released for XP before they migrated. Also, MS isn't hurting that bad. Companies are still buying new laptops and desktops and guess what OS is also being purchased with them? XP.

While MS doesn't own the server market, their OS is still are on nearly every business desktop/laptop I see. Yes, that may not be true for some Slashdot types, but it is true for the rest of the working world.

Everybody is waiting because... (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696111)

There's no SP1 yet. I know that's the case here, and I'm the senior sysadmin for about 3500 seats. There are some pluses to Vista like Bitlocker for our laptops, amongst other things. We have been doing compatibility testing with Vista for some time now, and have found the vast majority of our applications work okay, only a handful do not. Those handful of users will be refreshed with XP if the software isn't upgraded by then, and if it is, they will run Vista. Everybody runs a 2 year refresh cycle from their start date, so that's how we refresh PCs.

the telling part is... (2, Interesting)

igotmybfg (525391) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696129)

"a new Windows release is primarily a chance to sustain the revenue we have"

obviously. there's not really much there in terms of day to day productivity boosters. there's nothing in windows vista that'll change the world or blow my mind. it's pretty easy to to see that this also applies to, for example, office 2007 - how many releases do they need before they get word processing right? the glaring example of this is of course the ribbon bar, imho - a UI change/obfuscation just so that people would have a reason to buy the product again.

Re:the telling part is... (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696797)

imho - a UI change/obfuscation just so that people would have a reason to buy the product again.
not just your opinion either. I think this is progress - make manufacturers provide more stuff to run the additional requirements for the thing, but I'm a bit fed up with it now. If you don't have 1GB RAM Vista doesn't perform very well (fortunately, I have 2gb, but I'm thinking it won't be long before that's a laughable amount and I'll have to buy more).

And to top it all, they introduce all singing (hmm) and dancing Jav.. sorry, .Net development environment that you practically have to use ensuring you have a reason to buy more tools, books, training courses, consultancy, etc. I wouldn't mind if it really did give us something that was significantly better, instead of just a bit different.

it all makes sense! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20696149)

"a new Windows release is primarily a chance to sustain the revenue we have"

so this is why the new OS is so craptastic: they only made it to "sustain the revenue", not to actually make anything groundbreaking or desirable to have for one's PC. it all makes sense now!

No upgrades, just new purchases (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20696263)

Most businesses would not even dare to upgrade their XP or even previous versions to Vista, simply because their computers are not powerful enough or supported by Vista. The only "upgrades" will come from new hardware purchases with pre-installed version. The only problem is that businesses are reluctant to upgrade their hardware when it appears to be functional. They will only upgrade when their computers break down or just too slow to perform certain tasks.

It's a language problem. (2, Insightful)

Minwee (522556) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696303)

I think the problem is that the survey refered to Vista as an 'Upgrade'. Had they asked "What are your firm's plans to make your users' and IT staff's lives miserable by forcing a completely unneeded operating system change onto them?" then they might have gotten a better response.

Maybe never... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20696325)

I work at a company with about 7,000 engineers. We have not adopted Vista yet and I would be suprised if we did within the next couple of years. In fact all new machines may ship with Vista, but when they arrive they are loaded with XP or Linux.

Also, I would expect it would be at least a year before we adopt Office 2007.

I work at a government laboratory and security is the primary issue.

Lets talk numbers (1)

tmk (712144) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696365)

How many companies have not upgraded to XP yet?

And how many are still running Windows 98 or 95?

Windows 2008? (1)

ynososiduts (1064782) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696379)

Where is it!? They need to take out the core of Vista, use it in the standard Explorer (maybe a new 08 theme, but no Aero), and market it to businesses. Like they did when ME and 2000 coexisted. They pushed ME, even though there was the better 2000 alternative.

Re:Windows 2008? (1)

Spad (470073) | more than 6 years ago | (#20697159)

I've used a couple of the early builds of Windows 2008 Server - it's awful.

Vista-style login screen, Vista-style control panel, UAC for God's sake. It's like they took all the worst and most annoying bits of Vista and shoehorned them into Windows 2003 Server.

Meaningless stastistic. (1)

Seraphim1982 (813899) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696381)

I really hope the article just did a really lousy job of explaining the study because "Less than 2% of UK-based firms have already upgraded all their desktops to Windows Vista" strikes me as an incredibly meaningless statistic. If a company has 2000 computers, 1999 of which were upgraded to Vista, and one of which is still running XP, then they wouldn't be counted.

If a company has a single computer that can't be upgraded to Vista then that company can never be counted as having upgraded. What percentage of UK companies have 5+ year old computer? What percentage have a Mac?

(Shrug) Doesn't sound like a low number to me. (1)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696395)

In fact, given that it's the number that have upgraded all their desktops to Vista, it sounds quite respectable, or at least par for the course.

My company still has some desktops running Windows 98, how about you?

Poorly-worded article summary (1)

msblack (191749) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696477)

Rob writes "...and 18% in the next two years. That means that within two years from now, only 56% of survey respondents say they will have upgraded their firm's desktops to Windows Vista."
Those two statements seem to contradict each other.

Upgrades (2, Interesting)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696495)

Over here, the heads of IT, marketing, and managing director (me) all agree that going to Vista is a downgrade* not an upgrade, so the systems now dual boot with Windows XP and Linux**. Microsoft can shove Vista where the sun doesn't shine.

* Having "played" with Vista on another persons new machine and decent spec, it's terrible.
** After learning about Linux from scratch.

So most companies... (1)

bealzabobs_youruncle (971430) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696537)

will slowly roll out a new desktop OS, this isn't news.

Are they really surprised? (1)

EddyPearson (901263) | more than 6 years ago | (#20696707)

To run Vista, businesses will need new machines (that is, if they bought the current machines for XP) with higher spec, they costs money.
Also you have to roll it out, which costs money
Also you have to buy the Vista itself, which costs a lot of money
You have to make sure your apps run, if not fix them, which costs money.
You have to take support calls for those who can't use Vista, which costs money.

All this, for a differant UI (some argue better, I disagree).

vista (1)

scolbert (1122737) | more than 6 years ago | (#20697011)

When i read these stories, I have a pretty different view here: this is great news for Microsoft. They continue to have record quarters in terms of revenue and the upside for Vista is just starting. No matter what they say, organizations will eventually move from XP to Vista (and nothing else). It will take a long time just like 2000 to XP. My comments have nothing to do with my feelings about Vista usability etc. I use both a MacBook [personafile.com] and a Vista desktop (at work)... I prefer the Mac (don't we all?).

That's because (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20697137)

Most businesses in the UK still use Server 2003 and terminals. Ok, I'm basing this one a pretty small sample size (4 companies based in sheffield, around 600 terminal installed base on average), but I reckon if you were to only take business machines which are currently running XP, you'd be a fair bit closer to the 5%. Businesses and Retailers are more concerned with Office 03/07 upgrades than Vista (a case of "we don't really care, you don't need it, but replacing machines off the shelf it's much easier to get them with Vista on")
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...