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!

More Evidence That XP is Vista's Main Competitor

Zonk posted more than 5 years ago | from the xtc-vs-adam-ant dept.

Windows 428

Ian Lamont writes "Computerworld is reporting that Windows XP Service Pack 3 runs MS Office 10% faster than XP SP2 — and is 'considerably faster' than Vista SP1. XP SP3 isn't scheduled to be released until next year, but testers at Devil Mountain Software — the same company which found Vista SP 1 to be hardly any faster than the debut version of Vista — were able to run some benchmarking tests on a release candidate of XP SP3, says the report. While this may be great news for XP owners, it is a problem for Microsoft, which is having trouble convincing business users to migrate to Vista."

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

fristy posty (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477447)

fristy posty

Bad news for XP owners (4, Insightful)

Potor (658520) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477531)

While this may be great news for XP owners
I would have thought that this is bad news for the owners of XP (i.e., M$) but good news for the licensees of XP.

frist (-1, Offtopic)

blake1 (1148613) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477455)

Enough news about Vista.

the ever elusive desktop (5, Funny)

Almir (1096395) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477459)

will 2008 be the year of vista on the desktop? stay tuned to find out!

Re:the ever elusive desktop (4, Insightful)

blake1 (1148613) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477493)

The only possible reason I can see for users/corporations upgrading to Vista is if vendors start releasing packages that are dependant apon features that XP does not include. For instance, if/when hardware manufacturers and game publishers only release DX10-compatible versions, or if Installshield upgrades their packages to require you to suffer the annoyance of UAC before confirming that you are certain you know that you want to install whatever software... companies still use them instead of MSI's right?

Re:the ever elusive desktop (5, Interesting)

wereHamster (696088) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477567)

> ... game publishers only release DX10-compatible versions ...

By that time the Wine ( team will have released DX10 libraries that use opengl and thus can run on Win XP or older (and of course Linux!).

Re:the ever elusive desktop (3, Informative)

Real1tyCzech (997498) | more than 5 years ago | (#21478077)


Sorry, as an avid Ubuntu and WINE user, I couldn't help but laugh at that one.

Re:the ever elusive desktop (1)

audi100quattro (869429) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477845)

Which will never happen thanks to the old chicken and egg problem albeit in reverse. Even games like Starcraft 2 are not going to be DX10 only, and no software maker is going to handicap their sales as long as there is a bigger install base of XP than Vista.

Re:the ever elusive desktop (2, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477977)

Making a companies core product Vista only would make the company go bankrupt, not increase Vista sales.

Re:the ever elusive desktop (4, Insightful)

tommertron (640180) | more than 5 years ago | (#21478123)

To be honest, I don't understand the hate for UAC. Ubuntu asks me for my password before installing software or even updates, or doing a lot of other tasks like editing system files. How is this any different?

Re:the ever elusive desktop (5, Insightful)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477609)

Home users will have little choice but to migrate as and when they buy thier next new PC, buisness users will be slower but some manufacturers are already putting out machines that are very difficult to find XP drivers for.

vista will replace XP just as XP replaced 2K, it will just take a bit of time.

Re:the ever elusive desktop (2, Insightful)

Almir (1096395) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477675)

oh, certainly. i've been using vista for a few months now and i like it just fine. i think businesses are just waiting to see if there are any major bugs and, of course, to test their specific software packages for compatibility. there is obviously the speed issue too, but that's always the case with a new os. mind you, i did have to disable all of the 'security' features to be able to work with it. i just found it funny that the desktop question applied so well to vista this time.

Re:the ever elusive desktop (1)

darthflo (1095225) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477871)

The really large businesses (let's define that as some 5k+ users) probably have had a rather concise rollout plan for Vista for a year or more. Really bad stuff (e.g. Office 2007's 65k = 100k bug) might delay those schedules if not corrected fast enough, but the minor (yet constant) nuisances Vista holds for it's users mostly won't qualify.
Adoption or lack thereof in smaller businesses will be way quicker yet somewhat depending on the large corporate uptake. Looking forward to see what 2008 holds.

Re:the ever elusive desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477995)

i think businesses are just waiting to see if there are any major bugs and, of course, to test their specific software packages for compatibility.

Or in our case finding its flat-out can't work with our applications. We've been rolling our new Vista machines back to XP because every few weeks we find yet another issue...

Re:the ever elusive desktop (1)

MikeUW (999162) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477737)

Right. Little choice for sure...between Vista, Fedora, (K)Ubuntu, CentOS, openSUSE, etc...XP (if you scab it off your old machine maybe)

Re:the ever elusive desktop (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477757)

some manufacturers are already putting out machines that are very difficult to find XP drivers for.

Dell and HP still provide drivers for Windows 2000, in addition to Windows XP.

Microsoft is still supporting Windows XP. PC manufacturers will support Windows XP as long as Microsoft does, possibly even longer.

Re:the ever elusive desktop (1)

alexhs (877055) | more than 5 years ago | (#21478027)

1) 2000 and XP have the same drivers.
2) We have a Dell laptop at work for which we're unable to find XP drivers, it comes only with Vista drivers.

Re:the ever elusive desktop (1)

The_Fire_Horse (552422) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477793)

My god - surely any manufacturer that limits their drivers to vista only would be insane.

Any new OS is going to be slower than the previous one - this is easily tested by dual booting and checking for yourself - this means that unless there is a compelling reason to upgrade, WHY would anyone want to slow themselves down?

Re:the ever elusive desktop (-1, Troll)

msuarezalvarez (667058) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477975)

I honestly do not recall any distro upgrade since, say, 94, which resulted in a slowdown of the computers I use. Maybe you could reconsider your choice of OSs?

Re:the ever elusive desktop (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477989)

surely any manufacturer that limits their drivers to vista only would be insane.

Microsoft "enforcer" looks around, pushes some papers off a desk, flicks a zippo lighter a few times;
"Nice factory. Shame if anything happened to it... Now about those Vista-only drivers?"

Re:the ever elusive desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477893)

I wonder just how much XP has replaced 2K. In the business space I see little reason for moving to XP let alone Vista just yet.

Re:the ever elusive desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477923)

Not necessarily. Just last month my dad bought a laptop, and, deciding against using Vista at ALL costs, took a short video of the screen as he declined the Vista EULA, then contact Toshiba for a refund on that portion of the purchase (he is currently being pushed between Micro$haft and Toshiba, but he is nothing if not persistent). Then he installed XP, and had to manually download several drivers, but all seems to be working properly. Lot's of extra work, but it can be done!
I'm sure eventually a PC will roll out that is too fast or advanced for XP to support, but by that time, Vista will be considerably less buggy (and no doubt the latest and greatest OS will be out from MS)

Re:the ever elusive desktop (2, Insightful)

webmaster404 (1148909) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477941)

More and more people though are switching or at least looking at Linux and Macs now as solutions. Even the non-technical people agree that Vista is slow and bloated, they hate UAC and don't like how they changed everything to make it "new". People are cutting through the GUI only to find that all Vista is, is just a skin change on XP that runs slowly and has half the components renamed. Office 2007 is the same, people want the look of 2003, 2000 or '97 and hate the new look of 2007, they are switching to Open Office. Free software has matured much more rapidly then the propriatary software that is in the world today, Vista was a huge step backwards from XP in the areas that people want, speed, ease of use, and good driver support. Just because MS's "futuristic" skin for Vista looks nice, once used, people see that it is nothing better then XP and in many ways worse, when I can get a used computer for $25 with XP pre loaded that runs decent (although I wiped it for Ubuntu as soon as I figured it was booting OK) or you can get a computer for $999 that runs Vista halfway decent, people will go for the $25 option when figuring all they need to do is surf the web. watch movies and e-mail. Microsoft is falling... fast, Linux is the only OS that is going to take over besides OS-X which Apple won't let you use on anything Non-Mac.

Re:the ever elusive desktop (4, Informative)

mosch (204) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477963)

The Best Buy crowd will get pushed to Vista, it's true. But it hasn't been a week since I ordered a new desktop for myself from Dell, and I bought it with XP Pro installed. (And XP Home was an option.)

It's hardly impossible to buy a home PC with XP on it these days.

Re:the ever elusive desktop (2, Informative)

brucmack (572780) | more than 5 years ago | (#21478093)

buisness users will be slower but some manufacturers are already putting out machines that are very difficult to find XP drivers for
We have global agreements with two suppliers in the company I work for: Lenovo and HP. If one of them were to stop supporting XP, we would stop buying from them. Businesses have a lot more power than consumers, since they can always find another alternative.

I don't think XP support is going away though... Heck, Lenovo's newest models still officially support Windows 2000.

Re:the ever elusive desktop (1)

jkrise (535370) | more than 5 years ago | (#21478095)

some manufacturers are already putting out machines that are very difficult to find XP drivers for.

Please name these mfrs.... I will avoid them at my firm. We have decided to stick with XP; and our new machines will have only 512MB RAM and loaded with Corporate Licensed XP. The addl. cost of 2GB RAM and video cards with DX10 is too sttep. If however the h/w doesn't work with XP by design, you'd be doing us a favour to name the models and mfrs.


Re:the ever elusive desktop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21478127)

To be honest, as someone who fixes computers for the random IT clueless (ie: 90% of the population) I've had several requests to "downgrade" Vista machines. Anyone else shared the experience, now or when it was 98->xp?

frtfp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477465)

omg first reply!

Not a monopoly! (5, Funny)

dattaway (3088) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477473)

Microsoft now has proof that consumers have choice!

Games (5, Insightful)

telchine (719345) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477475)

I think games might be the key for Microsoft to increase Vista uptake.

Vista is the only operating system that supports DirectX10 at the moment. if it stays that way and games start making use of DirectX10 features then games will have no choice but to use Vista.

There is also the small matter of "Vista only" games such as Halo 2 and the eagerly awaited Alan Wake from Remedy, the makers of Max Payne. that too will be a "Vista only" title.

Re:Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477497)

There is also the small matter of "Vista only" games such as Halo 2 and the eagerly awaited Alan Wake from Remedy, the makers of Max Payne. that too will be a "Vista only" title.

Frankly, I imagine Halo 2 will be for vista what Halo 1 was for the xbox. (the _only_ game worth playing).

Re:Games (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477501)

The more likely scenario is that Microsoft will give up and port DX10 to XP, or someone else will do it first.

Re:Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477661)

This is theoretically possible, but much harder than many people seem to think. Although Vista is certainly a less than compelling "upgrade", there are significant differences in its driver model versus XP that DX10 is closely coupled to. Some WINE devs mentioned early on it could be done in principle, but so far all we've seen is a simple techdemo release of the 'Alky Project' and many are sceptical about its chances of becoming a meaningful game-running port.

Re:Games (5, Informative)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477669)

Microsoft will give up and port DX10 to XP, or someone else will do it first.

Someone else.

You can download a preview here []

Re:Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477719)

The more likely scenario is that Microsoft will give up and port DX10 to XP, or someone else will do it first.
But, for it to have any meaning they would have to backport the new graphics subsystem in Vista, allowing multitasking and virtual memory handling for GPUs. Requiring all new drivers (and relive the pain Vista is going through because of this break with legacy).

Unlikely DX10 is the new standard for 2 years (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477603)

Most games for release in the next two years won't have DX10 as a standard. They will opt for offering enhanced DX10 features, because they can't afford to alienate the majority of the market share that only runs XP and 9x. Its all about the money as profit margins start to get tighter with console competition.

The benchmarks I've seen also put DX10 at a significant loss in performance for barely noticeable gains. For top of the line hardware to crank out some softer shadows, glossier textures, and lose 20% FPS, its not worth it. Games like MMOs that rely on the broadest spectrum of hardware won't come out with DX10 until its on 90% of target systems.

Would Microsoft consider porting DX10 to XP? I think its unlikely. Mostly they projected to end support for XP soon anyways. Plus its a step backwards, you can't push new features of Vista when your porting them to older, temporarily more attractive systems.

Re:Games (1)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477607)

I'm not so sure, I mean.. I have a couple of games that make use of DX10 (Crysis & Bioshock) and yet I run them under XP. The only way for me to run them in fancy DX10 graphics mode would make things into a slideshow because of a simple issue in that the only DX10 capable graphics chipset I have is on my Macbook Pro. (256MB 8600M GT, use bootcamp for games)

Frankly, the only people who're seeing any advantage of DX10 are those with outrageously highend systems. (my desktop machine is decently highend, but that has a DX9 card in it.. 512MB X1900XTX)

I haven't yet seen any large amount of people move over to Vista, even those who have the midrange DX10 cards. While people will go over to Vista eventually I just don't see it happening until we start seeing games en masse coming out that are DX10 only.

Re:Games (2, Informative)

ericartman (955413) | more than 5 years ago | (#21478081)

Got a 8800 Nvidia Vista game system and an old 7600 Nvidia Xp system. Tried games with and without DX10, let me tell you ain't nothing to be excited about that I saw. Maybe implementation of DX10 will get better but the ride ain't worth the price so far IMO.


Slight problem (5, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477619)

Halo 2 AIN'T a vista only game. It has been hacked and works just as well on XP. That isn't really suprising, it is an ancient game that ran on a P3, what the hell would it need DX10 for?

Other games like the recent system cruncher, Crysis, also can be tweaked to run with "disabled, DX10 only" settings on XP.

It seems more and more that a lot of the DX10 games just ain't there, some day there may be, but so far they are not.

MS could afford to force Halo 2 to Vista only, how many game developers can afford to be Vista only? MS better be handing over a huge sum of money to make a game just for Vista.

The problem is that a LOT of hardcore gamers are people who build their own machines, and are also the ones who need the top end Vista version, so they are faced with a very expensive purchase and for what? So that all their games run slower and take more memory?

It will be intresting to see what happens, I personally have little doubt that MS will survive this easily, but their mighty fortress has shown a tiny crack.

IF linux does indeed get DX10 support as some have claimed in the past via Wine like projects, then MS might be in real trouble.

That is a HUGE if, but in theory it is possible, already companies like Blizzard have to deal with the fact that a portion of their players are on linux and that they have to accept this.

It will be intresting to see how the Vista only titles sell in the near future. MS titles don't count, MS can afford to loose money, regular developers can't.

Re:Slight problem (4, Interesting)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477771)

IF linux does indeed get DX10 support as some have claimed in the past via Wine like projects, then MS might be in real trouble.
It was a summer of code project [] .

You can download the code from here [] . No idea if the DX10 API has made it into the main wine releases yet.

Re:Slight problem (1)

GroeFaZ (850443) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477883)

MS can afford to loose money

When they do, I hope some of that money stampedes in my general direction!

Re:Slight problem (1)

Feyr (449684) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477979)

wine can't even do dx8 properly right now, don't hold your breath for dx10

Re:Slight problem (1)

Kenoli (934612) | more than 5 years ago | (#21478065)

what the hell would it need DX10 for?

What does any game need DX10 for? Nothing, except to make it "vista-only".

Re:Games (4, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477635)

Vista is the only operating system that supports DirectX10 at the moment. if it stays that way and games start making use of DirectX10 features then games will have no choice but to use Vista.
Game developers/publishers don't care about vista and DX10. They care about selling games to the largest target market. If the customer base doesn't move then game developers won't make titles exclusive to Vista, especially when code for XP runs fine on Vista.

There is also the small matter of "Vista only" games such as Halo 2 and the eagerly awaited Alan Wake from Remedy, the makers of Max Payne. that too will be a "Vista only" title.
Are you seriously suggesting people are going to purchase an OS that is over $400 just to play a 3 year old xbox game?! I could buy Halo 2 and an Xbox cheaper!

As for any other Vista only titles coming out, check how well they are selling. Shadowrun was Vista only and it sold so badly they had to close the game studio!

Re:Games (0)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477655)

Shadowrun was Vista only and it sold so badly they had to close the game studio!

Since they made that game as un-appealing as possible for fans of the original Shadowrun, I doubt that making it run on XP, 95 and cellphones would have made it sell any better. Good riddance. Try making a _real_ Shadowrun game next time, and I just might think about buying it.

Re:Games (1)

elFarto the 2nd (709099) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477671)

Hopefully when they (Khronos) release OpenGL 3.1 then there will be a cross-platform way to use the hardware features introduced in DirectX 10.

Of course this means they would need to release OpenGL 3.0, which they're taking they're sweet time over.

Re:Games (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477765)

Another Vista only game was Shadow run, making it a piece of early vista software sure as helped sales of the game.
Failed miserably needless to say. Kinda makes you wonder what sort of strings Microsoft pull to convince software companies to develop for a platform nobody really cares about and with the recent trend of games offering "extra features" in DX10, which can be turned on in DX9 mode by fiddling around with configuration files. It does seem like consumers are taken for fools.
Vista is a comedy and nobody is amused.

Re:Games (3, Informative)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477809)

Vista is the only operating system that supports DirectX10 at the moment

Kind of a meaningless statement really. To say Vista is the only OS that supports it is to imply that other OS's are somehow less able, but DirectX is a microsoft only tool, written just for windows, which is the only OS family that needs it in the first place. Linux and the others don't need it.

Anyway, the only reason XP doesn't support it is because Microsoft decided to prevent people still using XP when directX10 takes hold.

For the pedants, yes there is Wine/Cedega, but that's an emulator.

Re:Games (4, Informative)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477961)

For the pedants, yes there is Wine/Cedega, but that's an emulator.
Wine stands for "Wine Is Not an Emulator".

Re:Games (1)

msuarezalvarez (667058) | more than 5 years ago | (#21478029)

I get you did not get the memo [] : Wine Is Not an Emulator.

Re:Games (1)

Wite_Noiz (887188) | more than 5 years ago | (#21478125)

Anyway, the only reason XP doesn't support it is because Microsoft decided to prevent people still using XP when directX10 takes hold.

I don't really want to defend Microsoft, but that isn't the only reason.
The Vista driver subsystem is significantly different in the graphics/audio area to XP - it was a ground-up redesign, hence the early driver issues with Vista.

From my experience of it, I reckon it has better longevity than XPs design (which was inherited directly from NT).

Driver-wise, there are still major problems in the audio area; but Microsoft refuses to get involved, laying the blame squarely with the audio hardware vendors.
This is stupid on their part because the consumer only sees that Vista has worse sound (and performance) than XP - they don't think "oh, but it's the driver not the OS".

I see no reason why Linux (and other non-MS OSs) won't have some sort of D10 substitute at some point in the future - but it's unlikely a usable one for XP will appear since it would require huge amounts of work to core parts of the OS.

Re:Games (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477931)

I think games might be the key for Microsoft to increase Vista uptake.
For the home market... yes, maybe... what % of computer users are gamers? But that isn't Microsoft's main revenue stream -- they need business to adopt it eventually. Unless you are in the business of developing games, then this won't encourage you to switch.

Re:Games (3, Insightful)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477997)

Making a game DX10 only is a death sentence.
The only ones in existence are ones made by MS or ones who MS has paid a hefty amount to..

comforts (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477495)

st Commentou are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward. 1

  yes Public Terminal
Anonymous Coward [ Create an Account ]

  Comment BOOGERS

Dear MS ... (5, Insightful)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477507)

... for your next operating system, please use Windows XP as a benchmark and starting point. Create a product that beats Windows XP in relevant categories (note that "amount of eyecandy" doesn't count - usability, speed, resource usage and security do). I'm sure you will have no problem selling that.

Re:Dear MS ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477727)

Another hint:
Gradually improving on what already works yields better results than throwing stuff out and putting new stuff in, but if you have to throw stuff out -do it in small chunks, not big ones.

The "next big thing" product model may be nice for the marketing droids, but development-wise it's the exactly wrong approach.

Re:Dear MS ... (2, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477825)

you'd also have to specify a baseline hardware configuration (hint: Vista runs faster on a 10GHz QP + 16GB than XP does on a 1GHz, 512MB box)

As it is, no operating system has ever run faster than it's predecessor on the same hardware. Whether you're talking OS/360 (what's that grandad?), VMS, BSD/Sys5 Unixes, probably even linuxes - tho' there are so many variants, it's impossible to know for all of them.

Re:Dear MS ... (2, Insightful)

Dak RIT (556128) | more than 5 years ago | (#21478057)

Well, that's not true. I'm sure there are a number of examples to refute this. The most recent blatantly obvious example (that nobody is going to debate) though would be 10.0 to 10.1. I think that's generally not disputed at all... other releases of OS X are often claimed to be faster as well and probably are in a number of areas, although it's more debatable depending on how you want to measure it.

Business Model problem? (-1, Troll)

avalean (1176333) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477511)

If Microsoft were to use the same business model as Apple and charge for the service packs, then it wouldn't be the same issue. But the problem there is that the additions the users get via the Apple updates are far superior than the Microsoft ones. Though being your own competitor isn't healthy in any industry.

Mod parent "Troll" (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477585)

For the "Apple charges for service packs" bullshit.

Lemme clue you in, sparky:

10.4, 10.5- Major versions (Paid upgrades)
10.4.1, 10.4.2...10.4.10, 10.4.11, 10.5.1- Service packs (Free downloads)

Re:Mod parent "Troll" (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477729)

The 10.n upgrades to Mac OS X are more like MS service packs than new operating systems. The underlying unix does not change all that much. The significant changes are mostly at the windowing level, in the graphics, and in the software. So yes, the service pack analogy is a good one. []

Re:Mod parent "Troll" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477837)

I disagree entirely. The underlying Unix has changed, including kernel API's, supported interfaces, user management, scripting interfaces, crontab replacement, et cetera. It's much more friendly for developers and sysadmins than it once was. You may not see giant game-breaking changes, but that's because the core technology they started with is much more amenable to upgrade than the MS systems - the changes Apple needs to make tend not to destroy things. And if they do, that's part of the upgrade cycle - Apple thankfully doesn't maintain backwards compatibility more than one outdated version, giving them a lot more freedom to innovate.

Re:Mod parent "Troll" (2, Informative)

Tickletaint (1088359) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477881)

Notwithstanding the fact that only the dweebiest of dweebs gives a flying fuck about the "underlying" system internals rather than the resulting user interface, I assure you the XNU kernel and Darwin have changed quite significantly between OS X point releases. I'd link Ars,, etc. here if I thought your simian intellect were capable of improvement, but I don't, and I won't bother.

Re:Business Model problem? (1, Troll)

danbeck (5706) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477909)

How is this Apple bigot being insightful? He just claimed that apple charges for service packs. What douchebag calls Apple's bugfix releases a service pack? The kind that thinks that MAJOR operating system upgrades are also service packs.

Look, to each his own. If you prefer the Windows way, go for it, it's your choice and your freedom, but leave the brain dead asshatery at home.

So? (3, Interesting)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477521)

So they are having dificulties converting users from XP to Vista? And they are laughing all the way to the bank.

OTOH, people and enterprises are slowly but sure upgrading to vista. The university where I work just took the step and upgraded 25 computer labs (30 computers each) from XP to Vista. Our departments are now slowly migrating as well. There is no rush... Why do we need to rush if XP was working great for us? If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

But now every new computer we buy, we get it with Vista. Seeing the users that have Vista just make the rest of us realize that Vista is not the horror that somepeople seem to be. Knowledge is the best medicine, so people see "oh, it works well", "oh, UAC was not THAT bad, it barely comes up when you work and don't install things"..,so slowly, more and more people are willing to upgrade. This is our case, and i think this is happening everywhere.

Re:So? (3, Interesting)

sledge_hmmer (1179603) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477597)

I would disagree with your statement that Vista "works well". I bought a Dell XPS 1210 laptop back in June pre-loaded with Vista. I would not call myself an absolute poweruser, but I am definitely well above average. Anyway, I figured I would give Vista a shot since everyone on Slashdot was bitching about it. I installed all the my required programs in the first week and saw an ungodly number of UAC pop-ups, but let's just let that slide since I was changing system settings. In the following 3 weeks, I am not kidding you when I say Vista would give me a BSOD at least 2-3 times a week. I'm sorry but in my books that is not acceptable. I know this is not a popular sentiment here, but I thought XP actually worked well enough for everyday work. I honestly cannot remember the last time I saw a BSOD or had to do a hard reboot to get over a application crash in XP. So compared to that Vista was absolute trash. Just my 2cents.

Re:So? (-1, Flamebait)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477707)

UAC seems to come out a lot the first week, when the user is installing programs, browser plugins, changing settings, etc. When a month or so has passed, people don't tend to change so much the settings, so UAC almost never comes up then.

People seem to bitch a lot about UAC in Vista but it's MUCH worse on Abbles OSX and people are lyrical about it there. First: if your account is originally an administrator, on Vista you will get a Accept-Deny dialog. If your account is not an admin, you will get a login prompt to introduce your credentials. On a makos, you will ALWAYS get the password thingy, which can be annoying after a while.

Then on Vista you can disable the UAC if you want (I don'y know why do you'd want to do that, but the options is there). On Abbles system, of course you don't have that option.

And believe me, I work daily on both systems and the sames rules apply when firing the UAC prompt.

About blue screen: this is a driver thingy. Vista was notoriously bad supported by 3rd part companies in the beginning. My Ericsson phone got support for Vista only last month! Fortunatly, this is slowly advancing as well.

Vista is certenly not perfect, there are a lot of things that need to be improved, but actually it's not THAT bad, like having a broken VSS^H^H^HTimeMachine or that it looses file when copying to the network like Leopard does.

Re:So? (1)

cloakable (885764) | more than 5 years ago | (#21478051)

If you use Apple products so much, why can't you spell the name properly?

Actually, having seen your other posts, where you misspell every OS other than Windows, I'm not surprised overmuch. Which is it? You're either a troll, or you feel compelled to respond to trolls by sinking to their level.

Re:So? (2, Interesting)

usrcpp (1184447) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477697)

Well, it depends. Our company takes care of 3,000+ WinXP workstations at a major airline's regional headquarters and migration to Vista isn't even on the table for discussion at the moment. Why? Because there's a tightly integrated suite of very expensive applications from over a dozen publishers that have been tuned to work on the hardware and OS of those machines. And given the fact that the technicians are stretched as it is, the last thing they want is to deal with a whole new set of compatibility issues. And let's not forget the cost of training all those employees. And on top of that you have the inevitable influx of all kinds of wonderful new OS-related incidents. And then you have the issue of justifying the surge in costs.

There is no justifiable reason why a company like ours would choose to willfully drink the poison that is Vista.

Re:So? (0)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477777)

Yes, if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Hell, our Math department are still running Mandriva linuzzz 2004 edition and Solaris 7. Are they rushing to upgrade to mandriva 2008 or Solaris 10? No way José... Not so fast... maybe in the future or if they are upgrading hardware to new machines.... They cannot risk to get new problems whhen they have an stable envioroment, and actually, they really don't care as long as their precios calculation proggy works fine.

Is the new mandriva a failure? or Ubuntu because those guys are not upgrading? No. An OS is not a peace of meat with a caducity date.... Use it, and when and IF you need something else, then upgrade. Until then... I'm still using my 2002 palm pilot.

Re:So? (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 5 years ago | (#21478063)

But there is no reason at all to upgrade. Its just upgrading for the sake of it.

There are more reasons to keep XP than to upgrade.

there's still time to (3, Funny)

mincognito (839071) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477523)

integrate Microsoft Bob into SP3. problem solved.

boredom is Vista's main competitor (3, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477553)


If you already have a PC, you'll run XP (or in my case W2K SP4) 'cos it just works. If you buy a new PC, you'll run Vista.

That's basically it. A few people will have bought a Vista upgrade - maybe they're ahppy with it, maybe not. If not, they'll either live with it or revert. It's not to do with competition, it's to do with a saturated market.

The only story here is: people sometimes buy new PCs.

Until there is a killer app that only runs on Vista, I can't see why most people whould make the change.

Re:boredom is Vista's main competitor (3, Funny)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477605)

If you buy a new PC, you'll run Vista.

No thanks. If I buy a new PC, it'll run Windows XP

Re:boredom is Vista's main competitor (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477711)

If you buy a new PC, you'll run Vista.

No thanks. If I buy a new PC, it'll run Windows XP

No thanks. If I buy a new PC, it will be composed of: motherboard, processor, ram and old pieces from the previous PC.

Re:boredom is Vista's main competitor (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477887)

A lot of people (especially companies) are buying new machines with XP on them. This is the whole reason for the story.

Re:boredom is Vista's main competitor (1)

Idaho (12907) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477993)

If you already have a PC, you'll run XP (or in my case W2K SP4) 'cos it just works. If you buy a new PC, you'll run Vista.

Indeed, and this is exactly where things could go downhill for Microsoft. Notice that "*if* you buy a new PC" part in your statement? (and I'm reading "PC" in the generally accepted "a computer running Windows" sense.)

You correctly stated "if" instead of "when", because for me, those times are over.

My next laptop will be a Mac, as the hardware is nice and this seems to be about the only way to get decent, supported laptop hardware without paying the Microsoft tax. Sure, you pay an Apple tax instead, but at least this provides you with an OS that you actually want to use! Any new desktop systems (if any!) will either be home-built (something I used to do when I still had plenty time to waste), or in the future will likely come with Ubuntu pre-installed (from Dell).

So yes, if I'd buy a new PC, it'd probably run Vista. This is indeed exactly why I'm not planning to buy any more PC's (in the generally accepted sense of the term PC).

Re:boredom is Vista's main competitor (1)

TempeTerra (83076) | more than 5 years ago | (#21478035)

I run win2K as well, and since Vista came out I've been noticing an increasing number of programs that don't support win2k (for no good reason that I can see). It's extremely frustrating. I just tried to update iTunes from 7.0 to 7.5 and, apparently, in one of the point releases they dropped support for my operating system! iTunes checks for updates every time I open it, but I can't actually run the update so it looks like I will be nagged forever. New games are doing the same thing, usually requiring XP SP2 even though even though I meet minimum hardware spec and can run the latest DirectX version (not counting 10, but who would?).

I suppose the devs think they can ignore win2k just because it's [Windows n-2] now, and it's getting damn frustrating for me.

obligatory Linux snippet in the end of the article (3, Insightful)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477573)


But Gray said he was convinced Microsoft will win out in the end, if only because it has virtually no competitor worth the name in the enterprise market. "Linux and Mac have 1% or 2%, and in some cases, such as Europe and the largest corporations, they don't even register," he said. "Microsoft owns this space, and I don't see that changing."
He couldn't resist taking a jab could he?

Of course the enterprise market isn't moving to Linux they're ass slow to move to ANYTHING. These companies are so huge that it takes years to change the way they work.

What I want to know is the made up (because you know what stats are like) figures of Linux growth in the Small to Medium businesses since they make up a larger majority of businesses then a couple of giant mega corps..

Re:obligatory Linux snippet in the end of the arti (1)

Tickletaint (1088359) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477761)

Actually, I can think of a couple giant [] megacorps [] that do use Macs, Linux and BSD in substantial numbers. But I guess this analyst is more familiar with the middling sort of low-risk, low-growth, boring, megacorps that you never really hear about and that never really grow your portfolio, by comparison.

The question is consideration (4, Interesting)

alexhmit01 (104757) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477769)

Are people considering Linux/Mac desktops/servers and adding them to the environment. Windows 2000 Active Directory made it hard to add the non-MS LDAP/Kerberos machines to the network, Windows 2003 has made it harder, though Win2003R3 has apparently helped. This certainly helps lock in, but assuming Redhat/Novell decides to make it trivial to add a machine in time by creating a Win32 Program to add things to AD, and Win2003R2 added the SFU Schema Extensions by default, and all of a sudden, adding Linux services can help, a lot.

One of the things I loved with OS X Server was that their Kerberos/LDAP integrated solution worked great, and adding non-Apple Unix systems was pretty easy... authenticate against LDAP, accept Kerberos, and just Add Principal (host, HTTP, whatever) and export a Keytab. It helped that Apple used MIT Kerberos which is the best documented solution.

The thing is, if the computer market is growing at say, 8% a year, Microsoft needs to be grabbing a larger share of computer wallet to hit double-digit growth. If Linux/Apple grab extra growth, say 4% of the market each, Microsoft will see either a decline in revenues or need to increase fees, which will force people to look elsewhere.

Win2K/Win2K3 made things much tougher for small businesses compared to NT4, Active Directory is MUCH harder to setup and use than a simple NT 3.51/NT4 Single Domain, but the well priced SBS solution provided a reason to keep them in the market. However, if someone with an Enterprise Play like Redhat/Novell made an effort to make it EASY to install a Redhat Server with LDAP/Kerberos authentication for both the server AND the webserver and whatever else, you start seeing it easy to migrate Web Apps to the Unix land.

Microsoft's marketshare doesn't have to plummet for them to hurt. If they consistently lose 1.5% a year to Apple/Linux, that makes it really hard to grow Revenues and requires them to cut costs to keep up profit growth. That alone limits their ability to just walk into markets and destroy them. When Microsoft "cut off the oxygen" for Netscape with a free browser to stop the Netscape Server package from becoming a threat, they could easily eat the costs of the browser because their newly established desktop/Office Suite monopolies were furnishing massive profits.

If Microsoft managers start obsessing over hitting the numbers, and budget constraints become an important part of the Microsoft bonus structure, then you don't see Internet Explorer projects... You don't see $10-$20 million dollar blackholes on the budget to maintain monopolies.

The loss of Bill Gates also hurts, not because he is an irreplaceable manager, but because he alone had the clout to do strange things. When Apple fired "professional management" and brought Steve Jobs "back," he had the clout to do whatever he wanted. He pushed projects out the door, canceled others, etc., and could be a one man show with control of the business. Founders have MUCH MORE political capital than professional CEOs.

If Gates said, "we must destroy Netscape, regardless of costs" (or Java, or any other technology that he found a threat), he could turn the company on a dime as Founder/major Shareholder.

If Ballmer says, "to hell with profitability, we must destroy Sony PS3/Nintendo Wii, I don't care what we lose in the process," I don't think that he can do it. The heads of the gaming and lifestyle division will go ballistic that they won't make their numbers and get a bonus, and will find people on the Board to back them and get hep. If Gates said that it was a priority, it was a priority, and he could probably change the entire management incentive structure to make it happen. He could create budgets out of thin air for what he called a priority.

Any loss in marketshare for MS is a disaster financially because it destroys profit growth, and the current management lacks the complete control of the company necessary to move the way it moved under Gates.

Re:obligatory Linux snippet in the end of the arti (1)

cybermage (112274) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477861)

I'd be curious to see how this guy defines "enterprise." Another quote:

According to a survey of nearly 600 U.S. and European companies that have more than 1,000 employees ...

If he defines "enterprise" as having more than 1000 employees, he's leaving out 5,092,154 of the 5,104,331 firms (citation [] ) that have fewer than 1,000 employees in the U.S. While I'm sure the vast majority use Windows, far more than 2% of the businesses I deal with use Macs and or Linux.

I really don't get the obsession with big business. Perhaps it's easier to survey a few hundred of the big guys than to do something meaningful. Many small businesses are part of associations (e.g., The National Small Business Alliance [] .) Perhaps surveying their members would be more representative of business computer use, no?

Realistically . . . (2, Insightful)

spamking (967666) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477665)

does anyone see Bill and Company significantly improving Vista before they stop supporting XP?

Microsoft Support Lifecycle []

more evidence that unprecedented evile is kaput (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477701)

if you're not too busy, take a chance & look up at the sky from time to time. also, take the extra effort to look into the eyes of people as you pass by them during the day. you can pretend that everything's in order, but you'll miss the actual content of your effort. the lights are coming up all over now. pay attention. it's cost effective, & could lead to yOUR participation in the better days ahead. try considering whois the 'main competitor' of all that is wrong/fatal.

meanwhile, never mind attempting to second guess/deny the creators, consider more the blood, guts & dead people, as well as innocent children being starved/blown to pieces. takes some of the excitement of the techno babble out of it. yOUR 'mainstream' media has failed us whoreabully (futile attempts at mass hypenosys) in this aspect.

don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, so you'll be alert when witnessing the big flash.

there's lots to be done. the planet/population remains in crisis mode.

we're intending (do not underestimate intentions) for the philistine nazi execrable to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things. []

micro management of populations/anything has never worked (for very long). it's an illness. tie that with life0cidal aggression & gangster style bullying, & what do we have? a greed/fear/ego based recipe for disaster/death.

the creators will prevail. as it has always been.

corepirate nazi execrable costs outweigh benefits
(Score:-)mynuts won, the king is a fink)
by ourselves on everyday 24/7

as there are no benefits, just more&more death/debt & disruption.

fortunately there's an 'army' of 'angels'(light bringers, for those who are afraid of/confused by heavenly stuff), coming yOUR way

do not be dismayed, it is the way it was meant to be.

the little ones/innocents must/will be protected.

after the big flash, ALL of yOUR imaginary 'borders' may blur a bit?

for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way), there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/us, as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile, will not be available after the big flash occurs.

beware the illusionary smoke&mirrors.con

all is not lost or forgotten.

no need to fret (unless you're associated/joined at the hype with, unprecedented evile), it's all just a part of the creators' wwwildly popular, newclear powered, planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

or, it could be (literally) ground hog (as in dead meat) day, again? many of US are obviously not interested in how we appear (which is whoreabull) from the other side of the 'lens', or even from across the oceans.

vote with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious corepirate nazi glowbull warmongering execrable.

we still haven't read (here) about the 2/3'rds of you kids who are investigating/pursuing a spiritual/conscience/concious re-awakening, in amongst the 'stuff that matters'? another big surprise?

some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.

it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....

as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.

concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.

'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking nazi felon greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Was it like this when XP came out? (2, Insightful)

Mistshadow2k4 (748958) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477705)

No one I know wants to upgrade from XP to Vista; the only person I know that had Vista hated it and downgraded to XP. Now, I remember when XP came out lots of people loved it immediately because it was more stable than 98 -- apparently, not that many had 2000. I got 2000 myself soon after and didn't upgrade to XP until SP 2 came out. Many /.ers have said that XP was none too great until SP2. I wasn't on /. back in those days and I don't know how XP was regarded on the "nerd sites" back then. So, was it like this with XP before SP 2?

Re:Was it like this when XP came out? (1)

mlk (18543) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477843)

My crappy memory tells me: Geeks had 2k. XP was pointed at as it had a weird cute interface (and thus was evil). By the time SP2 came out 2k was old (and so a little stinky) and the Geeks (I knew at least) were buying new computers, a few remained on 2k for a little longer before giving in.

However my memory sucks, I would not believe it if I was you.

Re:Was it like this when XP came out? (1)

ThreeGigs (239452) | more than 5 years ago | (#21478109)

Yes, it was just like this when XP came out. In fact, I remember it being worse. 98SE and 2K were both faster than XP when it first came out. No one wanted to upgrade (in business environments) because of the hardware requirements of XP. Back then, 128 MB of RAM was plenty to run Win2K and a couple of apps. XP was an absolute dog unless you had 256 MB, and you didn't get the same speed out of XP as Win2K until you had 512 MB. Driver models also changed from 2K to XP, so hardware support was spotty at first. Upgrading from 98SE to XP was very problematic for the first 3 or 4 months because manufacturers hadn't put out revamped device drivers for their older products. Gamers complained because XP wasn't faster, thus offered no advantage, aside from an excuse to upgrade hardware.

The only compelling reason (in my book) to upgrade was MS ending support. Win2K SP4 is just as stable as XP SP2 (in a business environment). At the nonprofit I worked for over the last 4 years, about half the PCs were 500 MHz systems with 128 MB of RAM, comfortably running 2K and Office aps. The biggest request from the users wasn't "Can I get a faster computer?", it was "Can I get a flatscreen?".

OpenGL (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477713)

Game developers need to start migrating to OpenGL! Then they could also create Linux versions of their games, and voila - we don't need Windows anymore :)

Something really telling... (3, Interesting)

eNygma-x (1137037) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477747)

I too work at a college. And we will be resisting Vista until the performance is better. What is funny is how the students are continually downgrading to XP. (they will find a way) And with gaming consoles students are less likely to switch to Vista. Macs have made a surge with our students but so has Linux. (which I'm happier about) Oh and before I forget. We also offer free computer support to the students. With all the machines we touch, we have yet see a Vista machine perform better than an XP machine, even brand new out of the box.

I wish they'd get their act together... (3, Insightful)

CFBMoo1 (157453) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477773)

I've been sitting on Vista since it nearly came out on my home PC. The primary reason was because of my job repairing computers. I knew that users would get machines with Vista pre-installed. I've wanted to switch back to XP and just live with that but I managed to talk myself out of it not because Vista is better, it's because most everyone that goes to the store will buy a Vista machine.

If the manufacturer of drivers are the problem then those people need to get their acts together. Either way I'm tired of having an OS that is suposed to be newer and better then XP but is anything but up to sub-par to XP. Get the damn thing fixed, jeeze people pay enough for that thing.

One last thing, take the dang confusion out of the 7-9 different flavors. Have two like XP and don't relabel everything just cause it's NEW. I still have a hard time finding Add/Remove Programs.

alternative systems are the main competitor (1)

bl8n8r (649187) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477831)

XP and Vista finish last in terms of stability and security. Eye candy, they are the front runners. Depending on the demographic, the competition will differ. Microsoft found out that people are sick of adopting garbage, that's why Vista will not fly unless it gets forced down the consumer's throat - which it will. For now however, I disagree that XP and Vista are competing on any kind of playing field other than Microsoft's own turf. The alternatives (linux, macintosh, bsd) are becoming more available and more widely adopted.

Re:alternative systems are the main competitor (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477981)

Vista has been much more stable than XP, and it is no doubt more secure.

However... your statement about Apple is true. My cousin just switched to Apple, and i'm already planning on buying a Macbook pro.

Apple is in a very good position right now. They provide real solutions, while Microsoft is stumbling. I mean look at the graphics viewer in Vista. It is a horrible peice of shit. If MS is going to integrate features, they better do so on a useable level for professional graphic designers, not just stupid mom and pop shit. Thats NOT what the OS is for, especially one named "ultimate" or "professional" or "buisness"

MS continues to crayola their os. They add features like the media player, which sucks compared to quicktime and itunes on the mac. They have piss poor thumbnail file format support in the os on Vista. Finally they added Tiff, but come on, how about TGA? PSD, EXR, IFF, PIC, etc

MS just doesnt get it. They barely provide any functionality in their OS. They list all of these features and in the end, most of them are so sub par, they are useless.

So what really is a windows OS?

Its a place where my programs run unfortunately.

Luckily Apple is gaining a lot of ground. Linux will never replace windwos or OSX on desktops. Its just too hard, and theres no support for the end user.

Apple has really mastered the user experience, and provides tools with their os for the professional.

It's not really that Vista is... (1)

jvd (874741) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477905)

XP main competitor. I think its quite obvious that the computer/IT market has changed dramatically over the past 10~15 years.

Let's classify the different markets into 2 categories, Business & Home.

In the business market:
It's just more expensive for a business to upgrade all the computers at the same time for no real reason at all other than "it's the new thing out there". About 10 years ago it was simpler, in the sense that most businesses were starting to enter the DotCom age and therefore, IT resources weren't as many as we have today. IT infrastructure was more simple than the IT Infrastructure we are managing. 10 Years ago, yes, we had some specific applications that we had to take into consideration before even considering a massive upgrade. Nowadays, everybody within ANY company, big or small have everything running in a computer, *everything* and to make things worse, every applications for most departments are different. We am trying to say is that is not as easy to adopt Windows Vista, as it was to adopt Windows 2000 over NT4 or even XP/2003 over Windows 2000. We tried to look at the posibility of upgrading to Vista and we have only a few computers running Windows Vista Business Edition, mainly reserved to Execs and other people. Most of our current software set is not compatible with Windows Vista and that's what's holding us back. It's not that we don't like Vista, is just not the right option at the moment if we want to keep our jobs :-)

Now the Home market:
Again, a very very different market than what it used to be 15~10 years ago. This market specifically tends to be the ones who either adopt very fast or adopt very slow. I remember people upgrading to Windows XP years before it was released. For whatever reasons, hardware limitations, budget limitations, or simply personal taste. The home market is the type of market that when it get used to something they don't want to change it. Maybe because for the use they give to their computer, maybe it just plain works for them and getting into the hassle of learning a new system, a system you can't predict like your old system because you don't know a lot of it, will really have influence into a buyers mind. Then we get the budget limitations, well, getting Vista MEANS getting a NEW computer. But, why should they feel the urge of spending money in times like now that what we have to do is save and spend wisely, our economy is not good we can't be spending like we used to do. I mean, they won't really get anything more than what they have except for cute graphics, all they want is a web browser, and email client and an office suite, oh and an IM'ing.

I mean, really... think about it, is it Microsoft or is it something else holding people from upgrading? I don't think Vista is as bad as people put it, out of 10 people who uses Vista, 7 say its good and that they like it (and use it everyday). 1 Didn't try to get along with it much and found everything very different and didn't like it and 2 used it at the local CompUSA/BestBuy store and didn't like it (and other people who did this very same thing told em it sucked). I mean, I don't know ;)

Not to karma whore, but (4, Interesting)

regular_gonzalez (926606) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477913)

Posted this the other day, and it's at least as applicable to this thread. I'll be surprised if the larger companies switch to Vista. A general rule of thumb is that the larger the company, the slower any software transition. Many reasons for this, from testing compatibility of your apps with the new software, to layers of bureaucracy to go through. As an example, General Electric is roughly 60% WinXP and 40% Win2K, at least in Europe -- I can't speak for other territories. Office 2000 is deployed on appoximately 80% of systems, Office XP on another 15%, and only 5% or so having moved to the 'modern' Office 2003 -- this despite known errors in Excel 2000 with workbooks containing lots of pivot tables and formulae running into the 'out of memory' issue. Given that they are the world's second largest company [] , and that there's no way they will be upgrading to any new OS without having, say, 3-4 years to test it and get it approved by the powers that be, that's a huge number of sales Microsoft will miss out on. I can only assume that other comperably large companies have similar behavior. To expound just a bit so it's not pure copy pasta, GE seems to be more conservative under Jeff Immelt than it was under Jack Welch - not necessarily a bad thing, just a difference in leadership style. The only software that they update to the newest and greatest on a regular basis is SAV. I would be incredibly surprised to see Vista rolled out on a site- or business-unit- wide basis, let alone across the entire company. More likely is that the W2K computers are migrated to XP over the next 12-18 months.

Misguided and trolling (5, Funny)

Groo Wanderer (180806) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477943)

That report is so misguided. Yes, Vista _IS_ slower, but think about all you get for it! You get free popups, chunks of your data archived at MS for NO added cost or CPU time other than the base Vista install, and the assurances that your software is genuine. With XP, you probably would have trouble sleeping at night not knowing for SURE if your software is genuine, or that your config and IP data wasn't safe in the hands of security conscious redmondians.

So Vista _DOES_ run slower, but the security and peace of mind is well worth it. Were it not for the added speed, you might be a victim of software WMD or something, they are out there you know. Boo.


Microsoft vs Microsoft (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#21477945)

Microsoft competing with itself?

Someone quick invent a boomerang chair for these situations

Vista Business/Enterprise offers a lot (4, Insightful)

cybrthng (22291) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477951)

Its just going to take time to implement, integrate & upgrade everything to support it. You would have to be kidding yourselves to think MS just made up vista without regard for its core customers. The business version includes encryption, AD, GPO, security, performance, reliability that business users demand and to think Vista isn't an upgrade over XP or 2k in these regards is simply foolish. Auditing, Reporting, Authorization, Policy Management and Manageability have all increased 10 fold if not 100 fold over xp "out of the box" - THAT is what Corporate America wanted - and got! Lord knows They will have to implement the hardware to support it as they would with any other demanding project but that isn't a fault of MS or windows. There isn't an out of the box linux distro within ear shot of a Vista Business & Windows 2008 in end user support & management - everything would be left to 3rd party systems, agent based management and user trust.

In the fullness of time (1)

ozbird (127571) | more than 5 years ago | (#21477987)

Computerworld is reporting that Windows XP Service Pack 3 runs MS Office 10% faster than XP SP2 -- and is 'considerably faster' than Vista SP1. XP SP3 isn't scheduled to be released until next year ...

So there's still time to cripple^H^H^H^H^H^H^H market-adjust SP3.

Don't worry (1)

strikeleader (937501) | more than 5 years ago | (#21478097)

Windows XP Service Pack 3 runs MS Office 10% faster than XP SP2 -- and is 'considerably faster' than Vista SP1.
The easy fix for M$ is to "fix" XP SP3 to run things slower than Vista.

what about memory? (2, Interesting)

period3 (94751) | more than 5 years ago | (#21478103)

XP is nice and all, but it only has support for 3GB of memory.

There's always XP64, but last time I checked driver support was pretty sketchy.

I run Vista for this reason alone. Any performance decrease relative to XP is more than made up for by the fact that I'm not running out of memory and swapping.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?