Now Is Not the Time for Vista 402
narramissic writes "With nearly a month of Vista availability behind us, businesses don't seem to be in any rush to take the leap. An article on ITworld cites two significant reasons for the foot-dragging. First, Microsoft's case-by-case approach to Vista patches, which is leaving some problems unpatched until after the consumer release in January. Second, application (in)compatibility. From the article: 'Some of the applications that still aren't compatible with Vista include IBM Corp.'s Lotus Notes e-mail and collaboration suite; Cisco Systems Inc.'s and Check Point Software Technologies Ltd.'s VPN clients; Intuit Corp.'s accounting software QuickBooks 2006 and earlier versions; and anti-virus (AV) software from Trend Micro Inc.'"
'
Migration (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Migration (Score:5, Insightful)
Do any companies ever upgrade immediately? It's stupid from the point of view of application support (for any OS upgrade/update there'll almost always be a few issues to be fixed) and there's no clear advantage. My last job was working in an office at a major company, yet they only upgraded from NT to XP in late 2004/early 2005, at the same time as they upgraded all the hardware. That's a little over 3 years after XP's release. I expect the same will happen with Vista. The next time they replace the workstations in 3-4 years they'll shift to Vista aswell. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than switching now and having to upgrade the hardware at the same time.
And of course this doesn't even begin to account for legacy software. In that job we were still using software originally written and deployed in the 70's, software that's damn hard to replace because the original COBOL coders are all long gone and nobody really has any idea how to migrate properly. Ridiculous amounts of money (millions) were spent getting this stuff to run on XP through emulators, you can be damn sure they're not gonna want to spend that kind of money again to get it to run on Vista until they absolutely have to.
It's a similar situation for home users. Very few people actually go out and buy Windows, they just use whatever OS comes with the hardware when they buy that. Given that computers are reaching a point where you no longer need to buy a whole new one every few years, is this going to affect the uptake of Vista? I mean I'm currently writing this on a Athlon XP 2400+, it's five years old yet it can easily accomodate any task I can throw at it. I'd say it's still got another couple of years in it yet, so what exactly happens to Vista's sales if everyone but the hardcore-gamers buy new systems running Vista on a seven year turnaround?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, I don't know why the consumer version wasn't out first. Let the general public (which is mostly clueless anyway) be the guinea pigs on their brand new Christmas machines. Then we wil
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Now Is Not the Time for Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
For desktop Linux in the workplace, you don't neccessarily want users installing software, let alone Quake 3. Many business IT people see the bigger picture in which IT plays a role. That bigger picture is that the business needs to run applications and manage data that's relevant to their operation. Nothing in that role description requires Windows or anything people are familiar with. I still see business running on terminal connections to a larger system somewhere. Nothing "NEEDS" a mouse... it's just a nice thing that many people have come to believe is normal. And when it comes to training employees, I believe that most of the training should and often does consist of understanding the DATA [information] that the business runs on. The user interface in those situations are somewhat irrelevant though admittedly not completely irrelevant. (A good UI is not the exclusive domain of Windows and I have seen countless BAD-UI applictions written for Windows as well, so the fact that something runs on Windows is no guarantee that the users will be more productive sooner or ever.)
And as a Linux apologist, I have to ask everyone to recall the "ease of use" that DOS/Windows had before Win95. And since package management isn't unified yet, it's obvious what is holding back the ability to "easily install Quake 3." The time will come though... it'll come. I imagine that if, for example, everything shifted over to RPM with YUM repositories, installing, updating and deleting packages could be managed through a convenient GUI such as Yumex. (It works really well in FC5 and 6) The problem isn't lack of technology, it's the diversity of technology combined with a presently low market drive. So the argument is actually a catch-22 argument. You're saying "linux sucks because because there's not enough mainstream apps to make it useful and those that do exist are too inconvenient to install and therefore it has a lower market share." I hold that as trends seem to indicate that the market share is growing in a very erosive way [meaning many people try Linux because they are annoyed with Windows whose market share they are eroding], "Linux sucks because its present market share is the cause for not having all the main-stream apps that other OS environments enjoy... presently."
Linux Apologist - Not Really (Score:4, Interesting)
Which is what everyone says. That shows that you don't know anything about the present-day Linux desktop. Question: what mainstream app is missing from the business computing desktop environment?
Is it:Well, the list goes on. Custom-written software (could work well under emulation unless designed specifically to thwart WINE), IP Telephony (Skype has a Linux client), and so on. My point is that any business that's interested could switch today if they wanted. There's no missing killer app (unless you're trying to make excuses). The roadblocks to migrating entirely to Linux on the business desktop are all artificially created by Microsoft to protect their monopoly. The most difficult part is convincing your users that it's a good choice. They've been brainwashed by years of Microsoft marketing, and believe pretty much every word that comes out of Steve's and Bill's mouths blindly. Many organisations will encounter significant resistance during training as belligerent, brain-washed Microsoft junkies demand that things go back to the way they were. That's unfortunate, because I can finally say after almost 15 years of using Linux, that using a Linux desktop is a joy, not an arduous task that requires command-line hacking to accomplish everything it can do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, now is the perfect time for end-user institutions to begin linux desktop migration projects, and to push vendors to fully function in that environment. After all, we're talking about migrating to a different operating system, why is it just assumed it will be vista, why not linux? Start plans to migrate to linux NOW, and start testing a linux desktop replacement that works with corporate apps. I inclu
AV incompatible? So? (Score:5, Insightful)
But why would you care that the XP version of an AV product doesn't work on Vista? Surely there are enough differences between the OSes that you'll need a new virus scan?
Re:AV incompatible? So? (Score:5, Funny)
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/10/01
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:AV incompatible? So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait until you have children...thousands of children. Some will even have titles like CFO or Senior Partner. The big kids want (and get) local admin rights. Those kids know they have you around to clean up their mess, and they can blame the existence of the mess on you in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
First, you install Windows, say XP SP1, and leave it in its default state. Then you fire up IE and navigate around to some pages. Preferably seedy ones. Googling "free porn," "warez," or "serial numbers" ought to do it. Then when you see some incomprehensible message about an ActiveX control, click OK. Congratulations, you've probably got yourself some spyware or a rootkit. This i
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:AV incompatible? So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Assuming this to be true, it still does not answer the fundamental question:
"Why bother?"
There's a new Shimano Grouppo out too. The mere fact that Shimano has released it doesn't in any way compel or obligate me to buy it. Releasing it is their issue, not mine.
My old Grouppo still works just fine.
So here's what they do:
The Grouppos require special, made only by Shimano (they have patents and shit) chains. They will discontinue making the chain for the Grouppo I already have, so just to buy a new chain I will eventually have to buy a new Grouppo.
Does this behavior sound at all familiar?
KFG
Re:AV incompatible? So? (Score:4, Interesting)
Shimano has driven most of the competition out of the market. They have a virtual monopoly on OEM equipment. The shit came preinstalled.
Does this sound familiar?
The "Open Source" stuff, well, mostly kinda sucks. It's not their fault, it's just that the newer "innovations" are all still tied up in Shimano patents; and the entire industry has to play Shimano's game or, at best, be relegated to a small niche market.
Does this sound familiar?
On my other bike, however, I have a Campy Nouvo Record Grouppo that, although propriatary, established the industry's "Open Standard." Although dating from the early 70's it still functions perfectly. It has actually outlived three frames.
But you must access the system from a console shell and don't expect to play DVDs on it.
Shimano took over an industry where there was already an established giant by cheaply mass producing knockoffs that were of inferior quality; but with the addition of features that made the equipment more convenient to use for the nonexpert. Once they had become the new giant they began throwing their weight around, raised their prices to the premium level and introduced planned, forced obsolesence.
Sound fam. . . ooooooooooh, nevermind.
Within the context of the story, however, the fact remains that until such time as the "chain" on XP wears out:
Why bother upgrading? XP has all those nifty "consumer" features already. Your existing system still works. What does it matter that Vista needs a new kind of AV package? As the OP illustrates the average consumer (note the absence of scare quotes) has come to simply expect all the little balls of needless shit he has to buy in order to upgrade.
So that isn't the real reason that uptake is a bit slow.
No, the real reason is that XP still works and for first time Microsoft has not been able to put forward a single compelling reason for the business consumer to find Vista desirable. It only seems to exist for the sole reason that Microsoft wants more of your money. For nothing.
Ok, so we have to buy new AV software for Vista, but why should we buy Vista?!
For the first time they have introduced a "new" operating system and the majority response is:
"Right, Bill. Blow me."
And they ain't gonna change that tune until the chain wears out.
This isn't strictly an issue with Microsoft either; I'm posting this from a Mandrake 8.0 box, but I could fire up the Red Hat 5.2 or Mac System 7 box.
But it's getting harder by the day to keep them up and usefully connected. Sooner or later I'll just say "Screw it" and put the Kubuntu box into frontline service.
When all I really need for Mandrake 8.0 (which on the whole I like better) is an improved chain. Carving chains by hand, however, while possible, is a pain in the ass.
KFG
Right (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Right (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the simple fact of the matter is that XP/2000 work just fine for a corporate environment. It's not like Vista will add any more stability over what's already available. When 2000/XP came out they were worlds beyond what 9x offered and a little better than what NT offered.
There's no need to switch when everyone's applications are running w/o too much issue and there are too many questions that need to be answered about how the new OS will operate.
That and I'm not sure people want to have to retrain their staff to use the "ribbons" of Office 2007 that Bill is so excited about.
Re:Right (Score:4, Insightful)
There's never been an OS that has seen immediate deployment in Enterprise. It's pretty disengenious to try to make conclusions out of the corporate adoption rate on the first month of availability (especially when it's not event available to the broader public).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What amused me was during the 2K bug crisis, after years of New Stuff being clamored about, and attempted forced obsolescence of old hardware, just how many organizations turned out to still have old Cobol systems installed in the back end of their New Stuff.
I won't be upgrading to Vista till I absolutely have to. I don't think this will be for a very long time,
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Watch it! I'm this close to calling Child Protective Services on you!
Notes doesnt work? That is a feature, baby! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
might be lack of exposure to the right people, too (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:might be lack of exposure to the right people, (Score:3, Funny)
Re:might be lack of exposure to the right people, (Score:2, Funny)
I remember XP didn't take off for a while, but then was adopted by businesses more and more as execs started having it at home and liking the pretty colors and the bells and whistles.
Yeah, and the funny thing is: once the IT department started deploying XP, they virtually removed all the fancy funny things with group policies.
Re:might be lack of exposure to the right people, (Score:2)
Now, as these XP machines are brought down by virus, and since they do not come with install media for such a case, you can either pay $300 for a new copy of XP to reinstall (which will be missing all of the important device drivers), then spend the next two weeks trying to get everything
Re: (Score:2)
on it unless the user can make a case for needing windows.
Re:might be lack of exposure to the right people, (Score:3, Funny)
Same Old Cycle (Score:5, Insightful)
Same Really Old Cycle (Score:4, Interesting)
This is unusual how? (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista *will* roll out to businesses, but don't expect it to overtake XP any faster than XP overtook 2000, or 2000 overtook 98, etc.
And Notes won't run? Damn - I'm upgrading NOW.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Vista is windows dead end. I believe a mass exodus to Apple computers will be occurring over the next five year. Up until and including Windows 2000, Microsoft deserved the market share they have had. But with Windows XP came especially Vista comes the realization that the company
Re: (Score:2)
and what sorts of problems/solutions were encountered during the
migration?
Good case studies are hard to find.
Re: (Score:2)
If a technology company uses a high percentage of Windows 95 computers, however, something is deeply wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll "upgrade" when they buy new machines, duh. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:They'll "upgrade" when they buy new machines, d (Score:2)
1) Most companies have volume licenses and custom Windows configurations.
Like my company, the first thing they do is wipe the HD and install their customized Windows image. I know of some companies who are still on Win2K. Eventually, they'll upgrade but on their timeline, not MS.
2)Most of the new user features require serious hardware.
Most users won't get the nifty UI changes unless they go with better hardware. Unlike XP and W
Re: (Score:2)
I recently worked for a big company that was finally biting the bullet and converting all their W95 machines to W98. I figure they'll start considering Vista in 2015 or so.
Somehow I doubt that this is an isolated case. Most business people understand that if you have something that's doing the job, you don't replace it with something unfamiliar.
Re: (Score:2)
How about Office 97 and 2K (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I never bothered putting 97 on it, (because I hate O97) but I don't see why it wouldn't work just as well.
Notes compatibility (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The second one being - slashdot?
Wow (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I was shocked when I ran the compatibility wizard and found those were incompatible... 'contact the manufacturer' it says.. umm..
Re: (Score:2)
I think the fact that Cisco's Call Manager interface is based on a bastardized form of Java and requires IE6 + MS JVM, they deserve to have to rebuild it. So saying Vista doesn't support Cisco, is only half true.
Cisco did it to themselves by going down a proprietary road, and now they're going to make their customers pay for the dev time to redesign it.
No problem for me though, I have access to IE 6 via citrix.
we upgraded (Score:3, Informative)
In the Ad industry we have to use lots (7) of custom apps for Media, Accounting, and Shipping. We had 2 problems. 1 wasn't the program but the installer didn't detect the correct OS. It was a small app so we just copied it over with its
As for the users: very happy with Vista and Office 2007. I mean, really happy. I'm sure it helps that they now have big flat screen monitors and faster computers, but we are getting lots of good feedback at the agency.
The OS: We wrote a few custom gadgets to automate a few tacks in about 10 minutes a piece, and people love them. We don't do the indexed search for network shares so people really aren't talking about that, but believe it or not, they love the animations and the "pretty" stuff. We never had a problem with XP crashing or anything so the fact that Vista is stable doesn't really change much for us.
For anyone thinking about Office 2007: It went over huge here, between the ribbon and all the visual additions (especially smart objects). Actually our Accounting department is loving the new excel, and our president is pretty excited about the toys in powerpoint. Word seems to be liked but that is the one we hear least about.
From my perspective: The Vista imaging software and new group policy is awesome. We did the rollout over the weekend, and it went off without a hitch. I'm not really giving MS credit for that, we worked on the image for a few weeks, but we are very happy so far.
Re:we upgraded (Score:5, Funny)
I pity whoever goes into the next meeting. PHB Powerpoint mindset: "I've got these toys and by God I'm going to use them ALL!"
Complementary... (Score:5, Funny)
In the Ad industry we have to use lots (7) of custom apps for Media, Accounting, and Shipping. We had 2 problems. 1 wasn't the program but the installer didn't detect the correct OS. It was a small app so we just copied it over with its
As for the users: very happy with Vista and Office 2007. I mean, really happy. I'm sure it helps that they now have big flat screen monitors and faster computers, but we are getting lots of good feedback at the agency.
The OS: We wrote a few custom gadgets to automate a few tacks in about 10 minutes a piece, and people love them. We don't do the indexed search for network shares so people really aren't talking about that, but believe it or not, they love the animations and the "pretty" stuff. We never had a problem with XP crashing or anything so the fact that Vista is stable doesn't really change much for us.
For anyone thinking about Office 2007: It went over huge here, between the ribbon and all the visual additions (especially smart objects). Actually our Accounting department is loving the new excel, and our president is pretty excited about the toys in powerpoint. Word seems to be liked but that is the one we hear least about.
From my perspective: The Vista imaging software and new group policy is awesome. We did the rollout over the weekend, and it went off without a hitch. I'm not really giving MS credit for that, we worked on the image for a few weeks, but we are very happy so far.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a EULA sticker that you have to break when you lift up the screen, and it said "By breaking this seal you agree not to sell this laptop on E-bay. If you do not agree, please return the laptop to Microsoft."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a criticism, just an observation.
Re: (Score:2)
I have to admit that after playing around with Office 2007 that those apps can take your useless crap numbers and make it look important or that you paid a graphic artists to make it l
Re: (Score:2)
Just a joke
Re:Well, perhaps.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps someone who's posting a piece on how they've had no trouble installing/running Linux has their own agenda as well. Or not.
The point is that on Slashdot saying something postive about MS is instantly suspect, but saying something postive about Linux isn't.
This is disappointing because nerds are supposed to be about logic and critical/scientific thinking, but we can be as blind as the worst sports fans when it comes to our sacred choices of technologies.
Re:Well, perhaps.... (Score:5, Interesting)
If it was a level playing field (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is that on Slashdot saying something postive about MS is instantly suspect, but saying something postive about Linux isn't.
All things being equal I'd agree with you, but all things aren't equal. MSFT spends millions on PR firms that make their living generating positive "press hits" for their clients. Slashdot readers aren't the only ones justified in being cynical of what they read about MSFT and MSFT products online, including this forum, and in trade magazines.
Not every positive comment
Businesses aren't upgrading because... (Score:5, Insightful)
IMHO, businesses aren't in a rush to upgrade to Vista because of the incompatabilities mentioned in the article, and the fact that upgrading costs a lot of money. Some of which, these businessess don't have, or weren't planning on using for a Vista upgrade.
If I may speculate on behalf of the businesses, with all the applications that they likely use on a daily bases not working, and the increased cost of upgrading (which you then have to pay off/make up in increased profits), they'd rather wait until most of these problems are fixed in the operating system they're going to pay for. You're probably thinking "well, there's no time like the present", and you'd be wrong. Businesses stand to loose a lot of money if the applications they rely on (and perhaps weren't mentioned in the incompatability list, but also have limited/no functionality) don't work until 6 months later when MSFT releases an update to fix all (nice dream, mind if I join?) the applications compatability issues.
Businesses would rather stick with what they've got right now for the next little while. It doesn't cost them as much to maintain an OS thats already been installed and is functioning, as it would to install Vista, and deal with all the resulting problems. It doesn't matter to them if they wait an extra 6 months to upgrade, because it will mean less loss in revenue.
Just my opinion.
That's why Vista is ready for launch (Score:3, Funny)
[sarcasm off]
Quote from the article (Score:5, Insightful)
And honestly, people can argue until they're blue in the face about how XP is fine, but the reality is that it's five years old, technology has changed and a new OS is necessary.
Does this guy even know what an OS is? There is no reason why new technology can't be supported in an "old OS". Especially if the "new OS" is basically an update of the "old OS".
Weather, not time, is the determining factor... (Score:3, Funny)
Has Hell frozen over yet? Then no Vista for me, thanks.
or testing perhaps? (Score:3, Informative)
Now that's just silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Testing a new OS in a month may be optimistic for a large organisation, but seriously, if you take two years to evaluate software, you're absurdly under-resourced (or just incompetent). What did you think you were going to learn after the first couple of times you installed it on a trial network and checked that everything you needed was working? Whole businesses come and go in that time frame! Really, either it's worth the time and money to upgrade or it's not, and if you can't make that call within a few
Same with NT, Win2K, XP. Not a big deal. (Score:5, Informative)
It takes about a year-and-a-half before a corporation that fully intends to transition to the new OS is ready for the "rollout." Typically this involves a good deal of preparation so that everyone in the company gets their new PC, their training classes, their new application versions, and their direction for migrating at about the same time.
At the introduction of every major Windows upgrade, the same things have happened: Gartner et al have told corporations to take their time adopting the new OS, and corporations, whether because they listen to the analysts or for their own reasons, have done so.
Gee (Score:2)
Not entertaining anytime soon (Score:4, Informative)
I don't doubt Vista will make some traction, but it seems to me that the likelihood is in a very slow adoption rate. By the time businesses are ready to take it seriously, many companies may be very open to alternatives that will have matured quite nicely. After all--with quite a few perfectly good computers sitting around that won't run Vista either at all or very well, why should we ditch those resources when we can reallocate them as a Linux desktop?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
- completely standardized/open formats and protocols as opposed to the "completely brand new" file formats that Microsoft loves to create each year
- had fully working x86 64bit support 3(!) years earlier than Windows (well... minus a ton of 64bit-incapable proprietary offerings, which never get their things done in time anyway)
- had nice 3D desktops at least a year earlier than Vista
- enjoyed a nice Bluetooth stack as the very first operating system ever
- and several others I don't recount right n
Re: (Score:2)
Cisco is to blame, not Microsoft... (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, I'm not upgrading essential work machines to Vista yet either. Once we get
Re:Cisco is to blame, not Microsoft... (Score:5, Informative)
According to several vendors, the IP stack kept changing throughout the beta process. After several futile attempts to write code against the stack, most vendors have had to wait until final release before building their products. Novell coems to mind, I'm sure Cisco and others are in the same boat.
Lotus Notes? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We use Lotus Notes in about 15,000 installations at our Bank. Of course, rolling out the image is hard, but then there is nothing problematic after that.
Maybe you got a older version of Notes.
Experience... (Score:2)
Maybe 10% of the workstations at work is "Vista ready". We most likely will not write off the other 90%.
I would say, give it at least a year and probably a servicepack, and only then start evaluating the costs and benefits.
I'll be upgrading (Score:2, Funny)
Plus, I like to experiment with the new features and see what's under the hood. Switch to Gentoo you say? I could, but then I'd have to get my hands gooey at levels that I'd rather remain a mystery (the kernel should remain distant, angry, and invisible like a God).
I'm Microsoft's ideal early adopter: Easily impresse
first compiling the kernel fud ® .. (Score:2)
I can't for the life of me understand why you would need to get your hands gooey. These provide similar desktop experiences to Vista without compiling the kernel. Looking Glass [youtube.com] on Ubuntu, Beryl 3D [youtube.com] on Gentoo, Novells SLED [desktoplinux.com] and Suns Looking Glass 3D desktop [macnn.com].
"I'm not a communist and don't believe in that hippy crap"
G
Re: (Score:2)
Summary: Willing to buy something that doesn't work, awed by bright colors and shiney buttons, fearful of anything different.
Maybe compatibility is not important (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually most versions of Windows do a lot of compatibility checks and fixes, but it was because Microsoft wanted people to upgrade (I would say it was a long term plan to migrate everyone to NT). Win 95 was a W
Yeah, a month? (Score:3, Interesting)
1) An OS with an exceptionally delayed production cycle. From a company with a less than stellar coding rep. Color me cynical, but I'm still worried they pushed it out the door early.
2) They rewrote the tcp stack. This terrifies me. We have what is essentially untested code in a critical component of the OS. Again, from a company with a less than stellar coding rep.
3) Support; It takes longer than a month for techs to figure out a new OS.
4) Infrastructure; Most systems in place in a corporation can't run vista. Further, we will not be upgrading just to pay the new tax to MS.
If in three or five years vista adoption is lacking, then that's a story; As of now, it's just common sense.
An oldie, but still... (Score:4, Funny)
Vip
businesses have set upgrade cycle contracts (Score:2)
So, the lack of immediate upgrading may have nothing to do with Vistas performance, or businesses opinions of Vista.
An office full of PCs (Score:2)
Cisco VPN does work (Score:3, Informative)
MS still controls PC OEMS and new buyers will .... (Score:3, Interesting)
If they ask for Linux they'll still get the run-around or turned down.
You can thank the Bush DOJ team that snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and gave Microsoft a "settlement" with no enforcement teeth and defacto approval for all their past illegal business dealings, and a blank check for continuing those practices under different disguises in the future. Before the trial Microsoft had secret agreements that restricted what OS the PC makers could sell with their computers. After the trial Microsoft "favors" OEMs with ad rebates if they are good little boys, otherwise the ad rebates are denied and the bad boys lose their profits. Different technique, same results: a continuing MS monopoly on the OEM desktops. If the Sherman-Clayton and other laws were enforced MS wouldn't even be alive today, so buggy and insecure is their software. Consumers would have a REAL choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's funny, people were saying the same thing about XP versus 2000 until MS refused to patch 2000 a few years ago. I've used Vista, and it is faster than my 1 year old installation of XP. XP has a nasty habit of getting fucked over ti
Re: (Score:2)
Have you actually ran Vista long enough to guarantee that this won't happen with Vista?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That said, yes, it was a steaming pile of dung, and about the only documented features it had over 3.3 were large disk support (which Compaq MS-DOS 3.31 had too), the
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Firefox under Vista works fine (in Basic mode, of course), as does any other web browser.
Re: (Score:2)
Our exchange admins refuse to turn on IMAP support, so us Linux users are
limited to using the web interface or Evolution with the exchange connector.
Evolution has recently become a little easier to live with (now on version 2.8.2),
but I'm still hoping that Thunderbird will eventually support exchange.
Re: (Score:2)
*many* companies are still using NT4 throughout. Because it works and it's stable.
It's not quite the majority any more (there's been a lot of Win2003 adoption recently).
It's only 9 months ago that a large company (multi million dollar) told us they couldn't run our software because we wanted NT4 SP6 and their IS department specified SP3.
NT4 is still the staple in the banking world - they have upgrade cycles of tens of years (In 2000 many of them were still running bespoke
Re: (Score:2)
At over 200MB for the standalone service pack, it certainly is big enough to qualify for being its own OS...