×

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!

90% of IT Professionals Don't Want Vista

CmdrTaco posted more than 6 years ago | from the oh-so-sad dept.

Windows 619

A survey by King Research has found that Ninety percent of IT professionals have concerns using Vista, with compatibility, stability and cost being their key reasons. Interestingly, forty four percent of companies surveyed are considering switching to non-Windows operating systems, and nine percent of those have already started moving to their selected alternative. "The concerns about Vista specified by participants were overwhelmingly related to stability. Stability in general was frequently cited, as well as compatibility with the business software that would need to run on Vista," said Diane Hagglund of King Research.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

619 comments

Well there you have it (5, Insightful)

drspliff (652992) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406693)

Conclusive proof that Vista has flopped :) Unless the survey was rigged, but CmdrTaco wouldn't be that naive would he?...

Re:Well there you have it (5, Insightful)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406731)

Just like XP flopped when people were complaining for ages that thousands of applications wouldn't work on it, very few DOS programs wouldn't work and it seemingly didn't offer enough benefits to counter-act this?

One thing that always bothers me with surveys like this is the "have you considered moving to linux/apple" type questions. That's an extremely vague question that can get a 'yes' that can have any meaning for "I've heard a few people talk about linux, I should see what it is" to "we have drawn up a feasibilty report and are waiting for a decision from upper management".

Re:Well there you have it (4, Interesting)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406943)

I'm no IT expert, but this is my impression of Vista.
Vista Pros: DX10 gaming. More secure?
Vista Cons: Slower, expensive, driver problems, compatibility issues.
I don't see a reason for businesses to switch to Vista, unless you play games at work. Does anyone see any real benefit for a business user to switch to Vista?

Re:Well there you have it (4, Insightful)

Ajehals (947354) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407125)

I have been having this very discussion with trifish as a part of another story.

Trifish [slashdot.org] would argue that the security benefits alone are sufficient to justify businesses to upgrade. Personally I would say that Vista may be attractive to new businesses* but not ones with an existing investment in XP or 2000, not because the security is lacking, it is an improvement over XP (especially on x64 hardware) but with all the other issues its just not justifiable.

Vista may become viable as hardware becomes cheaper or if there is a sufficiently large threat to XP that is left unpatched but does not affect Vista.

* (but they should be looking at the alternatives regardless, see what my company tries to do..)

Re:Well there you have it (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406961)

Difference is.... retailers back then didn't had to give a downgrade to xp option (forced in this case) as Vista now. Give me one example where retailers had to give w2k or w98 licenses to people who had computers bought with XP licenses.

You can stick your head in the sand and refuse to see... but that wont make an ostrich out of you.... just dumber then usual.

"Just like XP flopped...." (2, Interesting)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407103)

Windows XP/2000 didn't flop because the alternative was much worse (ie. Windows ME).

Anything was better than trying to make ME work. NT4 wasn't really an option because of missing USB drivers, etc. (Microsoft was deliberately using things like lack of USB to help force the upgrade from NT4 to XP).

These days the alternative to Vista (ie. sticking with XP) is a better option, and Microsoft has nothing to leverage (DirectX 10 isn't going to force anybody to upgrade...)

Uh...No. (5, Insightful)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406887)

I've been working IT for a long time, and I've NEVER liked a new operating system. New == Problems.

Unless there is a damn compelling reason, I'll stay with what is working and working well until the new thing has been out for a good while...Hell, I know shops that are still migrating to XP and while I think they're behind the times, they're not alone in that.

If you migrate up just because something new is out...That's just foolish. You're adding a fricking ton to your workload, and for no good reason.

Re:Uh...No. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406897)

"I've been working IT for a long time, and I've NEVER liked a new operating system."

Yes, but you're a moron.

Re:Uh...No. (4, Insightful)

WPIDalamar (122110) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406929)

I think the biggest problem with Vista is there is no compelling reason to upgrade for business users.

It's prettier. But that's about it.

Hence the announcement.... (1, Flamebait)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406965)

Hence the announcement a few days ago that Windows 7 would be "available in 2008" - to stop people from jumping ship.

(Oh, sure, seven'll be ready in the next six months...!)

How many IT professionals... (3, Insightful)

Winckle (870180) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406695)

want windows at all?

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

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406807)

Honestly, XP has it's flaws but a fully patched machine is a fairly reliable box overall.
It still has windows general bullshit but considering the age, there's so many great newsgroup / forum and google search* posts for support, most issues are bound t be easy to fix.

* fuck experts exchange, get off the google search results.

Re:How many IT professionals... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406869)

expert sexchange? No thanks!

Re:How many IT professionals... (3, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406889)

For expert sexchange, use the cached google page. I haven't found a case yet where the answers weren't shown in the cache.

Re:How many IT professionals... (1)

smussman (1160103) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407005)

I find that with NoScript blocking the JavaScript in the page, I can see the answers as well. Probably related to showing up in Google cache.

Re:How many IT professionals... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21407137)

For expert sexchange, use the cached google page. I haven't found a case yet where the answers weren't shown in the cache.


I love you... But also agree with the GP's post.

Re:How many IT professionals... (1)

sBox (512691) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406939)

When you consider the investment corporations have in XP and Windows related applications, XP's stability and patchability, and plethora of decent certified engineers in the marketplace, there is no reason to move to Vista. Why bring on the headaches without any real benefit? Why do we have to re-educate users on a whole new OS and interface? Microsoft should move to a subscription-based support model for XP and begin work on its next OS -- which must include all of the features originally promised to corporate IT in the first place.

Aside: In our company, I and several others are dying to drop-in Ubuntu desktops and/or Citrix terminals, but at the moment we have too many critical applications that won't work without IE or cannot be adapted to a Citrix environment. Until the companies who provide these services to us change their applications, we have to live with it. We're stuck with Windows until they do.

Re:How many IT professionals... (4, Informative)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406981)

Yep, I work for an Australian Govt Dept and we migrated to XP about 3 years ago and XP SP2 about 3 months ago.
Things are really quite smooth at work.

We're buying machines under 800$ with monitor, keyboard, mouse, etc and running XP perfectly fine on them.
If we were to consider Vista, the SOE manager wouldn't put Vista on a box with less than dual core and 2gb of ram (and I don't blame him)
XP does all we need it to do right now and it does it well.

Vista would be a support nightmare, I can envision workplaces looking at CTX / Ubuntu setups in the near future definately.
It's possible we would migrate to Vista but I can't imagine it happening for at least 2 or even 3 years, it'll be 4 years old then - terrible.

Re:How many IT professionals... (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407119)

When you consider the investment corporations have in XP and Windows related applications, XP's stability and patchability, and plethora of decent certified engineers in the marketplace, there is no reason to move to Vista. Why bring on the headaches without any real benefit? Why do we have to re-educate users on a whole new OS and interface? Microsoft should move to a subscription-based support model for XP and begin work on its next OS -- which must include all of the features originally promised to corporate IT in the first place.

Ok, so what was the reason for anyone to move to XP? People said all the same things when XP launched, so what was the compelling reason that most have upgraded?

Re: How many IT professionals... (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407043)

Honestly, XP has it's flaws but a fully patched machine is a fairly reliable box overall.
Yes, I find it a bit more stable than Windows 3.1.

How many IT professionals...Pale face. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406901)

"want windows at all?"

How else are they going to see out?

Re:How many IT professionals... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21407093)

An It professional has always through history opted for a UNIX flavor or Mac OS(yes i mean System 1 - MacOS 9).

Otherwise he has never been an IT professional. Though he might have been forced to go with DOS or WinDOS.

In Other News (5, Funny)

RendonWI (958388) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406709)

90% of fish like it better in the water than out.

Re:In Other News (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406973)

Exactly... and in other news, the sky is blue.

Oh, yes, that's what we always say. (5, Insightful)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406711)

In the end Vista will be inevitable. Drivers not available anymore except for Vista, important programs that are Vista-only. Security updates not being made available for XP anymore. (Look at how the support for Win2k went downhill once WinXP was released. For NT 4.0, they stopped giving patches before the official end-of-line) Believe me, it will happen, eventually. Give it another year or two. I didn't switch to WinXP before SP2 was very mature (Fall 2005). Before I was Win2k all the way, and before that NT 4.0....

Try running NT 4.0 these days... Won't get you very far. That's the future of Windows XP. They are going to drop it like a hot potato.

Re:Oh, yes, that's what we always say. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406743)

Agreed. Nobody may want Vista but they will eventually get it. Eventually they won't have much of a choice.*

* Unless they opt to defect to a new platform which, let's face it, is nice in theory but far more complicated in practice.

Re:Oh, yes, that's what we always say. (5, Insightful)

Silver Sloth (770927) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406789)

I think you're missing the point.

It may well be wishful thinking amoungst the Linux faithful but there is a growing impatience with the endless Microsoft upgrade cycle. IT professionals are incresingly saying 'Why upgrade? We gain nothing and lose lots.' I have no major issues with XP, it does everything I want it to, but I will have to upgrade because of all the reasons you state.

So, put yourself in the shoes of a CIO faced with replacing hundreds, or even thousends of PCs because they need to be upgraded to run Vista, and the difficulty of going to the board once again with a request for huge amounts of cash for very little gain, and then maybe Linux starts to look a little better.

Re:Oh, yes, that's what we always say. (3, Interesting)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406851)

Oh, I understood that completely....

I have worked for banks (actually, I mostly work for banks), and they are notorious for being slow. So, in late 2004, a grand 3 years after the Windows XP release we were using NT 4.0 SP-5 on the desktop. On new Dell machines, nevertheless. While in a banking setup it wasn't important, there were no drivers for the soundcards and I believe the used a Matrox model they installed themselves that was still supported on NT 4.0 or somesuch thing.

I'm just stating that if you want to stay with Windows, staying with an older version is going to bite you in the ass sooner or later.

On the other hand, I have to admit that the end-users are quite aware about Vista problems. In the last two months, I had calls from three non-computer-savvy ladies who know I give "free" advice. They all needed a new computer and were aware of the problems with Vista. I was surprised about that. I pointed all three to Apple.

Re:Oh, yes, that's what we always say. (3, Insightful)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407053)

It may well be wishful thinking amoungst the Linux faithful but there is a growing impatience with the endless Microsoft upgrade cycle.

Oh yes, people are equally furious about 1) Microsoft continuously introducing new versions and 2) Microsoft not providing the features they want and need.

And whats more its the same people and they don't use Windows anyway.

Vista runs just fine. I have been running it since May and not had any problems apart from a couple that are pretty squarely third party issues. Vista is fast and slick on my hardware.

Admittedly I would probably not recommend a Vista upgrade but thats mostly because the cost of the Vista upgrade is so close to the cost of a new machine anyway. I have two vista machines and three XP machines in the house. One of those is a three year old Vaio that is dropping to pieces anyway. Another is a Dell box I paid $500 for including the monitor and the other is the machine I use for surfing while I am working out on the treadmill.

Why pay $160 to upgrade when the machines are 2 years old and I can have a whole new machine thats much faster for $500? I certainly would not consider buying a new XP machine though.

The industry does not want Vista whine is wishful thinking. Many companies took two years or more to roll out XP. If you have a hundred or so users you would be a fool not to adopt a wait and see approach. But that does not say anything about the quality of the product.

Vista has higher hardware requirements than past versions. That does not make them unreasonable requirements. But most IT depts want to support a single version of the O/S so that means that they can't do the upgrade till they can afford to end-of-life the legacy machines that don't support the new version.

Re:Oh, yes, that's what we always say. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406845)

Look at how the support for Win2k went downhill once WinXP was released
It did? I still use Windows 2000 every day an the only apps I can't use are mostly those that were specifically designed for XP. Also, the enterprise still makes heavy use of Win2k - and for good reason - it's just as stable as XP and it lacks all the "activation" crap. There are only a few features that XP brought to make the upgrade appealing which is why a huge chunk of the enterprise still use Win2k after all this time.

I (and I'm sure many others) feel that Windows 2000 was the best operating system Microsoft has designed to date. I woudn't go so far as to claim that I like it more than UNIX-like operating systems but I do think it pretty damn impressive coming from Microsoft.

Re:Oh, yes, that's what we always say. (4, Interesting)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406875)

I (and I'm sure many others) feel that Windows 2000 was the best operating system Microsoft has designed to date.

Oh, I'm one of those. Microsoft peaked with Win2k, but are you sure you get all security updates? Is IE7 available for your system. Does Office 2007 work for you?

As you read in my post, I switched to XP very late. Why did I switch? There is exactly one feature that is so useful in a home setting, that I still wonder why it hasn't been backported to Win2k. For me the "killer feature" was "fast user switching".

Re:Oh, yes, that's what we always say. (1)

LLuthor (909583) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407039)

Are/Were you using Win2K on a laptop? How did you overcome the lack of ClearType? In my case, the hardware support and software support was present, and the system did everything I needed to, but the lack of ClearType made it rather unpleasant.

I managed to trim XP down to a reasonable 150MB (on CD) and 350MB (installed - minus the pagefile) using nlite and am back to Win2K levels of performance (higher even! :) and all the features I need are present. (Plus a lot more of my RAM is free for caches or firefox).

Re:Oh, yes, that's what we always say. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406995)

In the end Vista will be inevitable. Drivers not available anymore except for Vista, important programs that are Vista-only. Security updates not being made available for XP anymore. (Look at how the support for Win2k went downhill once WinXP was released. For NT 4.0, they stopped giving patches before the official end-of-line) Believe me, it will happen, eventually. Give it another year or two. I didn't switch to WinXP before SP2 was very mature (Fall 2005). Before I was Win2k all the way, and before that NT 4.0....

I think you are right, but I think it'll be about 3-5 years before XP starts to be phased out. I found Win2k was quite adequate up until recently when software companies started releasing software that required at least XP SP2. For example, Adobe Photoshop CS3 (CS2 supported Win2k). I'm sure there were many others earlier that did this, but I didn't really start noticing it until the last year or two.

Then there is Microsoft's own software that requires XP. There is their latest consumer multimedia products, like Windows Media Player and Movie Maker. Then there is .Net 3.0 which requires XP. That is the big nail in the coffin of Windows 2000. The company I work for is stuck on .Net 2.0 due to this requirement because a lot of our customers are still using Windows 2000. Our customers are generally large corporations, so we don't expect them to be upgrading even to XP any time soon.

Re:Oh, yes, that's what we always say. (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406997)

In the end Vista will be inevitable. Drivers not available anymore except for Vista, important programs that are Vista-only.

Very, very unlikely. The makers of drivers and"important programs" want to sell their stuff. Why on earth should the target a small market instead of a large one? The only Vista-only software I am aware of today is games paid for by MS to be Vista-only.

Re:Oh, yes, that's what we always say. (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407017)

In the end Vista will be inevitable. Drivers not available anymore except for Vista, important programs that are Vista-only. Security updates not being made available for XP anymore. (Look at how the support for Win2k went downhill once WinXP was released. For NT 4.0, they stopped giving patches before the official end-of-line) Believe me, it will happen, eventually. Give it another year or two. I didn't switch to WinXP before SP2 was very mature (Fall 2005). Before I was Win2k all the way, and before that NT 4.0....

But with each of those steps, it's taking longer and longer for MS to displace the incumbent OS. Also, it's important to distinguish between vendor support and MS support. MS has a vested interest in maintaining the upgrade chase; vendors have an interest in selling stuff to people. So as long as an OS has a strong established base, it will get vendor support.

It will take time. I'm guessing it will be about 8 years until it actually becomes difficult to get 3rd-party support for XP.

Inevitable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21407075)

"In the end Vista will be inevitable."

Inevitable for you perhaps. I on the other hand am dual booting with Ubuntu, and am slowly but surely ridding myself of Windows. It's also surprising the number of off-line people who have heard of Ubuntu, and a few who are actually running it.

Dual booting with linux is an easy way to get Linux's numbers up without having to inconvenience yourself, you can have the best from both worlds.

Nothing new. (5, Insightful)

Bruzer (191590) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406715)

I read the same kind of article when XP came out. People didn't want to leave 2000 to upgrade to XP, and as we all know that happened.

Articles like this don't offer too much insight. IT workers are resistant to change... BIG surprise there.

Re:Nothing new. (5, Insightful)

GregPK (991973) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406773)

Different though, when 2000 came out it was pretty much everything Microsoft claimed and any transition to it was done with minimal compatability issues. Often times more things worked better after the switch. With XP, in the early years anyways there were some compatability issues. But again and overall users were happier in XP. VISTA comes out, users make the switch and the interface confuses everyone, Including the IT pro's. It has driver issues and backwards compatability issues. Even HP's own basic business systems have more compatability Errors with Vista than with XP. In other cases the interface is easier. But, to do anything advanced requires relearning how to a number of menu's. Things take longer...

Re:Nothing new. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406797)

My feeling with XP was that it offered the average 98/ME user a big improvement in stability and security over what they had before by giving them an OS desceneded from NT/2K not from Dos/Win31. But it offered very little to a 2000 user and there wasn't any reason for them to upgrade until Microsoft stopped supporting it. However with Vista what does it gain you to upgrade? I can't see any compelling reason until support is dropped to upgrade. I can see many reasons not to such as the massive investement in new PCs that many workplaces will require.

XP was a different story... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406805)

...because the main reason why big league IT didn't care to switch to XP when it came out is because it was only an unnecessary expense but didn't break anything. Windows 2000 was doing the job just fine and XP would do that same exact job just fine too, without a huge learning curve and a bunch of things deliberately broken. In the end, XP won out because as desktop machines got replaced in the normal replacement cycle, XP came on those new desktop machines.

Vista has a huge learning curve, plus it breaks a lot of stuff.

Re:XP was a different story... (2, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406841)

Twaddle.

Any significant IT department will either order systems pre-imaged to their requirements (Dell offer such a service), or re-image systems with their own company-specific image before they're sent out.

The big killer has always been driver support. Once the likes of HP, Lenovo and Dell are shipping PCs with significantly better driver support in Vista than in XP, then we shall see more adoption of Vista.

Re:XP was a different story... (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406931)

Business models of systems will have good drivers for XP for a very long time because large enterprise customers will demand it. Dell / HP doesn't have a choice.

Re:Nothing new. (4, Interesting)

kevmatic (1133523) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406821)

Not so much. Remember that many many many companies never did switch over to XP from 2k. 2k, last I checked (about a year ago), was still the most wildly used Windows. People act as though XP has 100% entirely replaced every last 2k or something. It hasn't. Adoption wasn't as fast as MS would have liked, and you can see attempts at keeping MS from repeating XP all through Vista's launch.

What I don't remember about XP, either, was mass outcry about XP-only machines and vendors offering downgrade options. I don't remember that one bit.

No, this isn't like the release of XP at all.

I remember when I had 98 and was more or less forced to upgrade (try running 98 on 2Ghz+ hardware). I was EXTREMELY hesitant to upgrade, I mean, 98 was good, right? Games didn't work right, right? DOS stuff? It took me about 5 minutes to love 2k and I never looked back to 98. Trying out Vista, though, for the first time last week (and on the same machine I had tried to run 98 on years ago), the same thing certainly didn't happen. I was never so happy to reboot back into Gentoo before.

Re:Nothing new. (5, Insightful)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406859)

Of course, back then, the Apple alternative was a little thing called 10.1 that seemed somewhat interesting, but had yet to be proven (and 10.0 had not exactly been amazing), and most of the apps had to be run in Classic Mode.

Now, the alternative is an OS that rivals Vista in the amount of hype it's gotten and at a bare minimum at least has support for MS Office and Adobe CS products (and has a couple different ways to run your XP/Vista programs if you really need one or two of them).

And, of course, Linux has come a long way as well - in 2001 it definitely was not user-friendly enough to be seen as a viable alternative for a lot of companies. Now not only has it improved its interface in a lot of ways, it has a much better software selection - a lot of office drones can get by just fine on OO.o instead of Office, people are using Firefox instead of IE even in windows, etc.

Everyone keeps saying "the same thing happened with XP" - but it's a different world now than it was when SP came out. No, I don't think Vista is going to be a MS-crushing flop. But when everything shakes out a couple years down the road, I think that the market share figures will definitely look a little different, even if MS still has a majority share.

Re:Nothing new. (1)

CambodiaSam (1153015) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406911)

Yes, XP was treated the same until SP2. Once people got over the "How dare you add features as part of a Service Pack!", the dust settled and we were left with a functional OS that was better than 2000. Will Vista be the same after it goes through SP1, or will it end up like Windows NT Service Pack 2, which I seem to have nightmares of for some reason.

The bigger problem is that XP really has turned out to be "Fine" for the majority of the email using public. There just isn't enough value in upgrading everything for your email to have more "Wow" according to MS. For IT, it's DEFINITELY not worth the trouble.

Re:Nothing new. (1)

AB3A (192265) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406953)

I was going to point out the same thing, but for one very critical difference: Back then, most Linux Desktops weren't quite there. It's much closer today.

Today, we have OpenOffice if you don't like the conventional Office 2007. We have many releases of Linux and even BSD that look pretty nice on a desktop. And if you don't want a bloated OS, you can pare this thing down to however little you can manage with.

That's huge. No CIO should ignore it this time. They may still head for Vista. But more and more of them are starting to see that there are real alternatives out there right now. Meanwhile, Vista is looking more and more half baked --and it doesn't even solve many problems that XP had.

Negotiating tactic (1)

Mark_in_Brazil (537925) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406993)

Look, I dislike MS and its abuse of its OS monopoly, and I've been working hard to expel MS products from my life. I'll be buying a Blackbook on my trip to the US in December, and the machine in my ice cream shop will be running a free (as in speech and as in beer) "commercial automation" package [stoq.com.br] on Ubuntu 7.04. That will be the end of Windows and MS products in my life for the moment, very probably for a long time, and possibly forever. That said, I think the IT professionals polled have a different reason to say they don't want Vista.
It's a negotiating tactic. They want to scare MS a bit into thinking there's a chance they won't adopt Vista, just to see if they can negotiate better prices or other terms.
Just as smart IT decision-makers made a point of having a Red Hat box somewhere visible in their offices when talking to their Microsoft sales reps during the 2000 and XP sales cycles, I'm sure they're now making sure the MS sales rep walks past at least one machine running Ubuntu and one Mac.

Re:Nothing new. (1)

Cesaro (78578) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407083)

There is a major difference though... Almost without exception everyone that made the jump to XP found it to be a better running windows system than what they were previously on (regardless of whether they were previously 95, ME, 2000.) When they made the change they didn't regret it immediately, or 2 months later.

Now jump forward to Vista and almost without exception everyone that made the jump to vista absolutely detests it. Every person I know that runs it just talks about (or actually does) go back to XP. Most immediately but some not until 2 months later when they find some incompatibility issue.

Re:win98 to XP (1)

Dare nMc (468959) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407109)

People didn't want to leave 2000 to upgrade to XP, and as we all know that happened.


I think the difference was most company's still had 98, so they were supporting 2-3 different OS's.

So you replace your 95/98 desktop machines with XP, because thats what PC's come with. Then once you figured out XP and it became stable you could go to a single operating system for all your windows boxes, including servers.

Today, most companys are only running XP. So what does Vista offer, as long as a few PC venders still supply drivers for XP, you got a supply, and as long as MS allows the renewal of site licenses for XP...

More legacy than stability (4, Insightful)

techpawn (969834) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406721)

Honestly for me, the number of applications that would just stop working or would need to be coaxed to run on Vista that would make it unstable is far more of an administrative headache than I know I'm willing to deal with at HOME let alone from Joe User who know how to turn a computer on and swears that when an icon is gone the application is missing...

Re:More legacy than stability (1)

NSIM (953498) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406983)

Honestly for me, the number of applications that would just stop working or would need to be coaxed to run on Vista that would make it unstable is far more of an administrative headache than I know I'm willing to deal with


And just what those applications be, I can honestly say that I've not had a single application fail to run in Vista, and I have a fairly extensive collection installed.

Different things (5, Insightful)

Slashidiot (1179447) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406723)

It's different what IT proffessionals think to what will happen. Who makes choices? The guy with the money, and withouth the knowledge. It's important to see that distinction, as it will take a loooong time to convince the people with the money that microsoft is not the best option. But at least it feels good that almost unanimously the IT people feel Vista is crap.

Re:Different things (1)

walt-sjc (145127) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406835)

Depends. If you are in a company where the decision makers are clueless, this can happen. Wouldn't want to work there however. Better, sell short.

I hate to re-post this but,.... (4, Interesting)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406737)

Please, don't mod down, just don't mod up if you don't like re-posts? How's that for a deal.
Vista's flaw isn't it's lack of a service pack it's the complete lack of THOUGHT in the design of the operating system.
The user interface is quite simply, messy - it's appalling, frustrating, confusing and slow.

Re-post below, sorry but damnit if it's not on topic and fitting (mind the language, I was pissed off when I wrote it)
(I wonder if Microsoft chumps read this site, I can post this all I want but how do I get these darn issues addressed, where do I post this to tell these idiots to wake the hell up?)
Anyhow, here goes..

First off, this post and my subsequent replies, my "general whinge with the OS"
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=304745&cid=20695969 [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org]

Then in a little bit more detail
(crosspost of a post I made on a forum not more than 24 hours ago, I finally documented precisely why Vista Explorer shits me to tears)
Warning: Bad language ahead.

Why does Windows Vista insist on a startup sound, despite me disabling all sounds, they are turned off but it does one at startup, I like quiet and what if I don't want to wake people up?

I've been meaning to make this post for a while, I may have railed on Vista for performance problems, specifically in Crysis, you do need to give a new operating system a 'pass' for a while, let it settle in (it's nearly been a year though!!!)

My beef still sits with Windows Explorer, something I use daily, a lot at work and home, I need it clean, simple and easy to get data into my face as quick as possible so I can react as quickly as possible (yes, I sorry to big note but I am, *that* quick on the keyboard and when working with files)

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/argh01.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com]
Apply to all folders won't let me save the options for "Computer" (My Computer) or Desktop, this is annoying.
also, fuck the breadcrumbs bar, in the ASSSSS

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/argh02.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com]
That motherfucker 'task pane' which is taking space up from my damn explorer view.
Sure, I found some website suggesting I shrink the size of it (yay) but I can still accidentally click the bastard, plus it still looks messy.

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/argh03.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com]
Mofo! I accidentally clicked it, see explanation of why it eats babies in the JPG itself.

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/whywhy01.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com]
Those little box pluses, I like them, why take them away? It's confusing and slowing down the amount of data I can take in per 'scene' I need info and you're witholding it, just so you can pretend you're neater than you actually are.

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/whywhy02.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com]
Ahh my boxes are back, this is good, also more cluttered shit.

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/wtf01.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com]
You call this a save as dialogue box?
I hit shift tab twice (yes, I do often, try it people) to navigate quickly to where I normally would on XP.
I slap backspace like 10 times fast, this should ensure I'm at desktop, almost instantly (shift tab x2 and backspace x10 takes me 1 second)
Does it work? no, of course it doesn't you breadcrumb whores.

soooo I hit browse

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/wtf02.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com] oh oh
Hot jesus, make the fucking hurting stop!
This is one of the best reasons WHY I can't deal, look at it, just look and tell me that's simple, quick and easy to work with?
This picture alone is why osx is going to gain some serious marketshare in the next 5 years.

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/shambles01.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com]
This one is a lot more subtle, this is the kind of cluttered stuff that's hard for anyone to notice is cluttered unless you analyse it.
You'll need to see all 3 JPGS to understand where I'm going with this.
Maybe I should've got into UI design? Maybe I should be a minimalist linux nerd but damnit that screams messy and awkward to me:/
http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/shambles01a.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com]
Same picture, without the guiding lines, look at that left panel it's nasssssssty

http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/shambles02-NOT!.jpg [shackspace.com] [shackspace.com]
Look how that lines up, look at it, look look look
go back to the other 2 shots and look then back to this one, it's cleaner and simpler - I can 'take in' the information faster.
Sure the branches aren't expanded but at least I'm starting off neatly. (2 lines, vs 5!)

There you have it, these are mostly subtle things I've liasted but the little annoyances which a lot of your more hardcore windows users, who just wanna 'get things donetm' get frustrated with.
I've actually said multiple times now that I'd actually switch to Vista for the new search and DX10 if they'd just fix the fucking front end!
I mean I really don't mind the slowness, it'll go away with more hardware, I don't mind the DRM to be honest (yet?) it hasn't bothered me.
I do mind that cluttered, shitstain of a user interface hindering me from getting things done
(and dumb shit like that sound playing with sounds disabled)

EDIT: Note, suggesting explorer replacements doesn't help, I RDP to so many machines, I need consistency and simplicity in the core OS UI, hence XP's explorer being somewhat nice and usable and of course identical / consistent from 2k3, XP and 2k3 RDP and XP RDP.

In conclusion, I have it installed and I damn well won't use it until that 'classic' UI can be cut down to something not so damned messy, it's just plain... nasty.
Anyone, comments?

Re:I hate to re-post this but,.... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406825)

This is off-topic, but:

mind the language, I was pissed off when I wrote it
If you have the presence of mind to notice that your post includes unnecessary foul language, then you have the presence of mind to go through that post and remove the words. (Alternately, if you think the swearing is crucial to the point you're trying to make, then say so and don't claim "I was pissed off when I wrote it.")

Many of the points you make are valid, and mixing in plenty of swear words only dilutes your emphasis.

(And, yes, I'm prepared for replies like: "Hypocrite! You labeled your comment as 'off-topic' but then submitted it anyway!")

Re:I hate to re-post this but,.... (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406863)

Actually some of it was for comical affect, further to that the 'fucking' 'shit' 'motherfucker!' was put on the .JPG's not just the post - so more difficult to remove.

If you work in IT and can't appreciate a good motherfucker now and then, (Especially as a Windows user) you're a sheltered man.

Re:I hate to re-post this but,.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406891)

I may be prejudiced, but I have a hard time taking somebody seriously as an IT professional when they have a disk partition just for porn.

Re:I hate to re-post this but,.... (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406927)

Hey, I'm a slashdot user, shouldn't I have a 3TB san for it?
(P.S that drive holds re-direct my documents, games, cd images for said games, mp3's, a 'temp' directory AND porn)

Re:I hate to re-post this but,.... (1)

nogginthenog (582552) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407061)

I'm with you on all those Explorer issues. Another thing that bugs me is when Vista see a BMP in a folder and thinks 'Gee in amongst these 100 C source files theres a file called companylogo.bmp. Hey, he must be looking at his holiday pictures! I'll helpfully add 'resolution' and 'date picture taken' columns'.

Re:I hate to re-post this but,.... (0, Troll)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407099)

Oh lovely that post is marked as a troll?
I mean I can understand over-rated but troll?
Have we got more fresh moderators from Digg on the site have we?

Please, bring on the moderators with a cluestick for goodness sakes.

Taking numbers out of context? bad survey? (1)

DraconPern (521756) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406751)

May be it's just a bad survey. How is it possible that 45% say system management prevent migration when all the platforms have management tools? The complete lack of application compatibility concerns makes me think this survey is bunk.

Re:Taking numbers out of context? bad survey? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406849)

May be it's just a bad survey. How is it possible that 45% say system management prevent migration when all the platforms have management tools? The complete lack of application compatibility concerns makes me think this survey is bunk.

"A survey by King Research has found that Ninety percent of IT professionals have concerns using Vista, with compatibility, stability and cost being their key reasons"

The concerns about Vista specified by participants were overwhelmingly related to stability. Stability in general was frequently cited, as well as compatibility with the business software that would need to run on Vista," said Diane Hagglund of King Research, which conducted the survey for systems management vendor Kace. "Cost was also cited as a concern by some respondents."
you were saying something about lack of application compatability concerns?

90% of IT professionals doesn't want anything NEW (5, Insightful)

YeeHaW_Jelte (451855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406755)

Any good IT professional lives by the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' adagium, so what's new?

Re:90% of IT professionals doesn't want anything N (1)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406853)

Any good IT professional lives by the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' adagium, so what's new?

I think you missed the part where it said the companies were currently running XP.

Re:90% of IT professionals doesn't want anything N (2, Insightful)

elhondo (545224) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406865)

I've only been in IT for around 15 years, but I've NEVER met an IT professional who didn't want to deploy something new. Not everything, but something. To a large degree, it's sort of why they pay us.

Re:90% of IT professionals doesn't want anything N (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406883)

To me it seems there is less excitement and slower uptake of Vista than previous MS releases. If true, that is new.

Re:90% of IT professionals doesn't want anything N (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406899)

The 9% that have already started moving to non-MS OSes (and the nearly half that are considering it) must not have gotten the memo.

Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406757)

If u stay in XP remember "resistance is futile u will be assimilated"

As for XP->Linux && your a gamer remember "DUDE WHERES MY GAMES"

As for XP->Linux and not gamer... wtf were u doing in XP all this time?

Bury!!! (-1, Troll)

ThirdPrize (938147) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406769)

It is a shame you can't "bury" a story like you can on some other sites. Then you wouldn't have to waste your eyesight on FUD like this, until it eventually falls of the end of the screen.

Re:Bury!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406879)

Can't you see the irony in claiming that a survey is false or FUD and that it should be censored but with absolutely no supporting evidence of your own against it?

One obvious note (1)

mach1980 (1114097) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406775)

IMHO you should read it as 90% of the IT-professionals believes that MS released Vista to early and hence the problems with stability.

On the positive side is that many will at least try Ubuntu or similar before switching from XP to Vista. That's gotta be worth something...

Yes, but what does "considering" mean? (4, Informative)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406787)

44% are considering moving to another operating system. That's so broad as to be almost useless. "Considering" could mean:

  • We've never even thought about other OSes, and we've just picked up our first copy of LinuxWorld magazine to see what all the fuss is about.
  • We're really annoyed with Vista. We've started paying more attention to those Apple ads.
  • We've started to do some actual cost comparisons between the various options, including Macs, all flavors of Windows, and Linux.
  • We're trying out some Macs on a test basis, and we've installed Linux on an old laptop just to see if it's a viable option.
  • We're in discussions with the folks at Apple Enterprise Sales to see what kind of price they can give us for our exact requirements.

Re:Yes, but what does "considering" mean? (5, Informative)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406941)

The article breaks it down a little bit more:

"Clearly many companies are serious about this alternative, with 9% of those saying they have considered non-Windows operating systems already in the process of switching and a further 25% expecting to switch within the next year," the report "Windows Vista Adoption and Alternatives" reads.

So about a third of that 44% have at least made it past your first two stages, and some of those are in the final stage.

Where is the haha tag? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406795)

Seriously

MS blunder (5, Interesting)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406827)

If you read my journal, you'll see that my latest post is an expansion of my sig. You see, Microsoft's motto used to be "Where do you want to go today?" If that were still the case today, I think it would be a multiple choice question, and the choices would be:

  • Mac OS X (Server or traditional version)
  • Linux (pick your favorite distro)
  • *BSD (pick your favorite distro)
  • Other UNIX system.

The ironic thing is that all of these alternative OSes are UNIX-based or UNIX-like.

Back to my sig and journal, I haven't used Windows on my own computers for a number of years now, but I do administer a number of XP machines for my employer. This is soon to change as we are seriously considering a move to the Mac platform for all of this company's computers, and for the two must-have Windows-only applications that we use on only two of our machines, we will install VMware and run XP in a virtual machine. We have been testing this configuration for a number of months now and it is rock solid. Not only that, but these two apps are major engineering applications with four and five digit price tags, and although the versions we use are 7 years old, they do the job we need them to do and no upgrade is necessary, so it will be unnecessary for us to switch to Vista any time soon.

We did evaluate Vista when it first came out. The evaluation was a short one because we immediately recognized that MS made a big blunder with Vista. To begin with, the installer took forever to load, and then gleefully told us, in shiny letters on a colorful background, how Windows Vista saves you time, as if to say that if the Installer works this slowly, wait 'till you see the operating system! Once the system was up and running, it became quite apparent that it was a joke. We realized that if we were to embrace Vista, it would mean replacing all of our computers, training most of the employees who use them due to the interface's heavy changes, and have many issues with speed, compatibility, and integration. In short, the cost would be horrendous, and at the end of the day, we couldn't find any justification for this expense, even if we tried.

That is the bottom line. Tremendous cost; no benefit. This is Microsoft's blunder. They simply can't keep forcing upgrades because XP does everything that most businesses need from an operating system, and the course MS should have taken is one of incremental improvements. Had they spent the last five years fixing bugs, cleaning up code, optimizing the bottlenecks of the system, tightening up security, and providing new features slowly and incrementally, they would probably have Windows XP with instant search and a database file system working by now. The only additional misfeature that Vista provides is its incredibly ugly, slow, and resource hogging interface, and we want no part of that. In fact, we run all our XP machines without the Luna interface because we think that's ugly as well.

Vista is MS's fastest product launch ever (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21406837)

And yet, Vista is Microsoft's fastest product launch ever, and easily has exceeded XP's sales at the same point:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_20070517/ai_n19115496 [findarticles.com]

And MS reported a 27% surge in revenue on strong Vista sales:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2207551,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000610 [eweek.com]

It's really only on Slashdot that it's a failure.

Re:Vista is MS's fastest product launch ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21407079)

I agree, and we should have a Vista parade to drum up support for this totally worthy, non-suckass software! I promise to dress up as a drum major, smile broadly, and say really upbeat slogans! Vista all the way! Don't be such a stick-in-the-mud with stats and experience! Get on the number one team and go in for the big win! There's no way that the world's third-largest corporation could be wrong! They would never stoop to astroturfing or strong-arming tactics! Vista's fast product launch and confetti and rock star endorsements are all evidence of QUALITY and INEVITABILITY! Yay!

makes no sense to me... (1)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406843)

"A survey by King Research has found that Ninety percent of IT professionals have concerns using Vista, with compatibility, stability and cost being their key reasons. Interestingly, forty four percent of companies surveyed are considering switching to non-Windows operating systems........." That statement makes no sense at all. If you list compatibility as a big reason for not taking vista, but then say you think to switch to a non-windows OS which is completely incompatible with your current apps?? What gives? I am guessing like like my employer, most business rely on some kind of customer software suite. Something written for windows. In my case, its a special database management program. There is no chance it would work on a Mac or Linux (tries wine myself ;)). We have also tried it on vista and it does work, but not always. That is the reason we dont switch. That is the reason when we get a laptop with vista, we stick on XP pro and will continue to do so until windows 7.

Re:makes no sense to me... (1)

essinger (781940) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406963)

"A survey by King Research has found that Ninety percent of IT professionals have concerns using Vista, with compatibility, stability and cost being their key reasons. Interestingly, forty four percent of companies surveyed are considering switching to non-Windows operating systems........." That statement makes no sense at all.
This is because (shock) Slashdot editors manipulated the survery findings to make things seem worse for Windows than they really are.(/shock) The survey said 44% considered (past-tense) switching OSs. Of that number 2/3 have already dismissed the idea outright. Only 9% of the original 44% have taken any steps to do so. So about 4%.

Broken record (0)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406871)

Didn't this happen with Windows 2000? And Windows XP? Of course nobody wants to change to Vista! Everybody has an Windows OS that's working for them right now, they've invested a lot of time, effort, and money into it to get it working, and they don't want have to go though all the headaches with a brand new OS. Vista's problems aside, this just make sense from an IT standpoint -- changing to a new OS it time and money intensive.

Office (1)

CaptScarlet22 (585291) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406885)

Until a version Office only works on Vista, there is no reason to upgrade from XP for businesses.

And thats only if the new Office is damm good!!

We won't be switching any time soon...I'll make sure of that.

I don't need it (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406907)

Unless/Until MS breaks older stuff, I don't need it. I use XP to run Office, my NMS apps, PUTTY, and Firefox/IE. It runs fine, I don't need more.

If I make $XX per hour, and I have to spend N hours to fiddle Vista into working properly, deal with its learning curve, etc, its just wasted time. Where's the killer app ?

Odd Statistics (1)

thePsychologist (1062886) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406909)

Macintosh leads the pack of Vista alternatives, with support from 28% of respondents. About a quarter said they would opt for Red Hat Linux, with SUSE Linux and Ubuntu each garnering 18% of the vote. Another 9% cited other Linux operating systems and 4% were unsure.


28 + 18 + 9 = 55. However, 44% was the claimed number considering alternatives (that 4% doesn't count). Perhaps each was allowed to cite multiple choices?

Vista isn't Stable? (4, Informative)

JustASlashDotGuy (905444) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406913)

Has anyone actually had any stability problems with Vista?

In our testing, Vista has been perfectly stable. Our only complaint is that 3rd party software hasn't been updated to work with it yet (IE: be it applications such as our Audit software, or Web-based SSL VPN from Cisco ).

Some users bitched about the new GUI, but these are the same users that complained about XP's different start menu and forced 2000-class on everyone for a while.

We will happily move to Vista once the 3rd party apps work with it. Blaming Vista because 3rd party apps don't work with it makes as about as much sense as blaming Mac or *nix because, CCH didn't write a tax app for them.

Vista killed a lot of backward compatibility by making things more secure. Although their implementation of this security leaves a lot to be desired (accept/deny). We have no doubt that the 3rd party vendors will eventually update their apps accordingly.

Stability issue would definitely cause us to push our deployment schedule back, however right now we are only waiting on the vendors to update their software (all hardware works fine so far).

Re:Vista isn't Stable? (2, Informative)

dave420 (699308) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407029)

I got a Dell with Vista pre-installed, and I decided to see if I could get along with it. I made sure I had an XP CD lying around to install should Vista not suit my needs. Well, it's a few months later, and I'm still using it. The performance is excellent, all my software works (granted it's pretty much only Adobe CS3, an SSH/FTP client, VPN client, packet sniffers, and games), and I've had no reason to change back to XP. I happen to appreciate the new GUI - it's very smooth, responsive, and coherent. I'm using it in conjunction with a Small Business Server 2003 box, and they play very nicely together. It's behaving well on the domain, the volume shadow copy functionality is working well. There are no stability problems - it doesn't crash, it doesn't need rebooting to "clear" the memory, nothing. It flies.

Seeing as Vista is selling better than XP was at this stage in its release, I don't think Vista is going anywhere. There were compatibility problems with XP, too, and they were overcome.

If I were an eccentric billionaire... (3, Funny)

paj1234 (234750) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406987)

...I would give the Wine Project (http://www.winehq.org/) all the money they need. Then we could say, "Debian GNU/Linux: Runs Windows applications better than Windows does". My philanthropic contribution to mankind would be better than Bill Gates', because people wouldn't have to die in hospital any more just because the flaky hospital computer crashed again.

I don't want it (1)

OneMHz (1097105) | more than 6 years ago | (#21406991)

I'm a software developer. After a couple months using Vista at my new job, I told my boss I was downgrading my dev machine to XP Pro. My job is a thousand times easier with out the great wall of Vista blocking me from doing it. On top of that, I don't know anyone else who wants it. From my mom and stepfather, to my grandparents to the office assistant, other friends... Everyone thinks it's crap.

99.9% of US do not want to be known as thieves... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21407021)

murderers, etc... however, that's the way we look all over the planet, whilst under the reign of (t)error brought on US by yOUR whoreabully infactdead corepirate nazi life0cidal execrable.

the lights are coming up all over now. see you there?

This just in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21407025)

People afraid of change. News at 11.

"Heterogeneous systems" issue (4, Interesting)

dpbsmith (263124) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407063)

"Yet heterogeneous systems management could be a barrier to going with a provider other than Microsoft, the survey found. Respondents reported that challenges include the need to manage multiple operating systems (49%) and the need to learn a different set of management tools (50%)."

Right... exactly the same set of challenges faced by anyone trying to manage more than one version of Windows.

I've always thought that a good measure of the quality of a software ecosystem is its ability to tolerate version skew between components that would be reasonably expected to be forward-compatible. Conversely, if an ecosystem only works smoothly when everything is at exactly the right version and patch level... particularly when the right version is not the latest version, it's an indication of a combination of poor engineering and poor management.

It was a revelation to me when, circa 1991, I heard software developers in a Fortune 500 company use the word "port" to describe what they needed to do to transition software from Windows 3.0 to Windows 3.1.

This sort of situation is tolerated by Microsoft and other large dominant companies (including Apple, these days, within its own fiefdom of dominance) and by their customers, up to a point.

To some degree it's a win-win scenario. A homogenous environment reduces everyone's support costs, provides a smoother user experience, and allows sloppy engineering to go tolerated and unpunished. It's zero-sum with regard to the cost of keeping the whole company updated, though: that costs the customer and mostly benefits the vendor. Still, a big customer will tolerate that cost, because there's some benefit, in terms of smoother operation. True, better engineering would allow heterogenous versions to interoperate smoothly, so in theory one could have the benefit without the cost, but this is the real world, and many customers may not like the upgrade treadmill but nevertheless see as being the best option.

But there's a breaking point, and it comes if it is not really practical for the customer to go to a homogeneous system.

Clearly it's not practical for a big company to go with homogenous Windows Vista yet.

Microsoft had better have come up with something truly commendable in Vista SP1.

yeah, doesn't really matter though; (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21407081)

at my workplace the man who is allowed to make decisions has decided that starting january 1: vista and office 2007 will be pushed out to all machines to "improve our service to our clients"

The disconnect between developers...and everyone! (3, Insightful)

BigCanOfTuna (541234) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407087)

I contract for an organization who's core business is developing software for the stock markets. While we use Linux in our test, staging, and production environments, I am constantly asking myself why the hell I am stuck developing on a laptop with XP? Why the hell am I stuck trying to emulate our Linux environment with Cygwin? Why are we maintaining two sets of scripts to make sure everything works (bash/batch)? Why am I forced to run performance crippling virus software? There are a number of supposed reasons. You've heard them before: "We need Windows for Outlook and Office" - I'm a developer, I need EMail and I hate documentation. Please let me use Firefox and if need be, I'll use OpenOffice. "The learning curve of Linux is too big for some developers" - Fire them, or give them different jobs. Why are you wasting my time, and others who could be more productive because of one or two nine-to-fivers? "Management of Linux would be more difficult for network support" - What you really mean is your support staff has let their skill set elapse and they have focused on Windows technologies. I'm sorry, but fire these people too. Your organization is being held hostage and is losing money by inept people.

"enough features" threshold (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407121)

As of XP, we crossed over as an industry into PC operating systems that have "enough features". Anything that doesn't introduce some mind-blowing new technology (i.e. something as shockingly different as IBM DOS vs. Mac OS circa 1984), will not cause users to upgrade from now on, because the current systems have "enough features".

What's to discuss? (4, Insightful)

talexb (223672) | more than 6 years ago | (#21407133)

Feh. Consider:

1. XP is fine -- a remarkable achievement, actually -- a Microsoft operating system that's finally releatively stable. Well, they've had a few years to get it right. And getting an OS right is really, really tough.

2. Vista requires top of the line hardware to run decently -- dual core processors and 2G RAM. We had the exact same discussion over ten years ago when Windows 95 came out -- Microsoft swore it would run fine in 4M memory, and it never did -- 8M was better, and 12M was decent.

3. Vista is still not stable -- it is, after all, a 1.0 release. Geeks consider anything 1.0 from Microsoft a bit dodgy.

4. All current applications run fine on Windows XP, but may or may not run under Vista. No surprise there.

5. A recent article said that XP was still outselling Vista three to one on new system installs. It's not a tough choice: do you want the stable option that runs more quickly and is more compatible, or would you prefer the unstable option that runs more slowly and is less compatible? Hmmm. But the new one has such pretty pictures! Shiny! Shiny!

Sorry. Got carried away for a moment there.

I think Microsoft's suits need to just suck it up and keep selling Vista quietly, and give the engineers time to get the code right. The hardware will catch up to Vista, and the engineers will get the bugs sorted out. In a couple of years XP will be old hat.

I just wish they'd been able to get more of the cool stuff like WinFS into the latest version of Windows. It seems that this version is just new wrinkles in the sheet metal, and nothing much else. Sigh.
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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...