[update] Windows Vista have surpassed 100 million licenses.

Discussion in 'Windows Vista Help' started by Clogwog, Feb 3, 2008.

  1. Clogwog

    Clogwog Guest

    1. Advertisements

  2. Clogwog

    Pete Guest

    Pete, Feb 4, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. The Ghost In The Machine, Feb 4, 2008
    #3
  4. Clogwog

    occam Guest

    occam, Feb 11, 2008
    #4
  5. Clogwog

    Josh S Guest

    Businesses are not rushing to Vista.
    In fact they are requesting XP be continued:
    http://weblog.infoworld.com/save-xp/
     
    Josh S, Feb 25, 2008
    #5
  6. Clogwog

    Notrod Guest

    The main reason they are not switching is because they don't want the down
    time of re-training their employees. The same thing happened when XP came
    out. It took a couple of years before businesses would adopt it.
     
    Notrod, Mar 2, 2008
    #6
  7. Clogwog

    Linonut Guest

    * Notrod peremptorily fired off this memo:
    However, XP was mostly an incremental upgrade to Win 2000. Vista is too
    much of a different animal. It wouldn't surprise me if Microsoft's
    focus skipped Vista and went ahead to Windows 7.

    Microsoft bit off wayyyyyyy more than they could chew. And, even with
    dropping features massively, Vista is still indigestible to anyone who
    requires backward compatibility.

    Your analysis is simplistic.
     
    Linonut, Mar 2, 2008
    #7
  8. Clogwog

    Linonut Guest

    * Max peremptorily fired off this memo:
    Well, for some meanings of the word "stable".
     
    Linonut, Mar 2, 2008
    #8
  9. Clogwog

    Notrod Guest

    I stand by what I said earlier. I work as a software consultant for a
    company that is the 5th largest producer of software in the country. It took
    a while but we have adapted our programs for Vista. When XP came out we did
    the same thing, waited for almost 2 years that time. Why? Because XP was
    unstable, it had compatibility problems with hardware and software, it was
    slower and it was a resource hog. Sound familiar? When XP first came out
    everyone was complaining about how bad it was. I had a rather heated
    discussion with Kyle Bennett of the Hard OCP site because he was slamming XP
    so hard. It was much more than an incremental upgrade to 2000. Way much
    more. All of the so called experts hated it. And now everyone is clinging to
    it like it was their long lost child.

    I've been using Vista Home Premium on my home computer for almost a year and
    I have had no more problems than with my laptop that has XP Premium. Yes
    Vista is different, but new software often is, its just a matter of getting
    used to it. When I switched to Vista every piece of software ran fine,
    including some that dated back to 1999. All of my games run with no problem,
    including Medal of Honor Airborne and Call of Duty 2 and 4. The only piece
    of hardware that didn't work was a 6 year old scanner. Vista even ran a 10
    year old IDE add in card with no problem. I am still running on the original
    install I did back in April 2007, no reinstalls needed.

    So far as the confusing array of *types*, according to Microsoft's website
    there are 5 different editions of XP and 5 different editions of Vista.
    Seems pretty even to me.

    I guess that's what frustrates me most about this. Everyone wants to jump on
    the bandwagon slamming Vista but there is no content to their arguments.
    Most of those who criticize Vista have never even tried it. They throw out
    statements like 'incompatibility of old devices', but don't back it up with
    facts.

    I've been a power user since I started using an IBM PC XT on DOS back in
    1984. I've used DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, 98, Server 2000, XP Home, XP
    Professional and now Vista Home Premium. I've also used Unix, Linux and even
    written software. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with Vista and I am
    glad I made the switch.
     
    Notrod, Mar 2, 2008
    #9
  10. Clogwog

    FeMaster Guest

    That almost makes sense, however, if they wait a couple of years before
    implementing it (like XP), what's the difference? They will still have to
    re-train their employees, if they did it then or a few years later. Your
    reasoning isn't logical.
     
    FeMaster, Mar 3, 2008
    #10
  11. Clogwog

    Notrod Guest

    Whoever said businesses were logical? The only reason businesses switched
    from 98 to XP was because they had to. They couldn't buy 98 machines anymore
    so they made the switch. Once XP machines started to outnumber the 98
    machines they converted the rest because it is always easier to administer
    just one OS. Not theory, I watched it happen not only in my own 6,000
    employee company, but also at my customers in my role as a software
    consultant. Businesses will switch when they are forced to. They won't do it
    earlier because it will cost them money and reduce productivity until their
    employees get used to the new OS.
     
    Notrod, Mar 3, 2008
    #11
  12. Clogwog

    Hadron Guest

    It gets better than that. Some people like Richard Rasker run around
    using store machines and screwing up.

    Others like Peter Koehlmann think that the "least compatible" WIFI
    chipsets have no problems and run "perfectly" in Linux. Jesus. Some of
    them dont even run "perfectly" in Windows, so how these chipsets plugged
    into a DLL wrapper suddenly work so well in Linux is a wonder to me and
    many others.
     
    Hadron, Mar 3, 2008
    #12
  13. Clogwog

    Hadron Guest

    Err, the guys who make the long term plans?

    I was hoping that last year would see a huge uptake in Linux. It hasn't
    happened. We have to accept that and ask "why?".

    Those of use with experience of real companies in the real world now
    why. It's simply too late. "MS" is a euphemism for "desktop pc".
     
    Hadron, Mar 3, 2008
    #13
  14. Clogwog

    Notrod Guest

    The reason Linux hasn't taken off is because people do not use it at home.
    Employees in corporations use Windows at home, which is a huge training
    plus for businesses. If they tried to use Linux they would have to spend the
    money and time to train their employees. It is much simpler, and cheaper, to
    use an OS that their people are already comfortable with.
     
    Notrod, Mar 3, 2008
    #14
  15. Clogwog

    Linonut Guest

    * Notrod peremptorily fired off this memo:
    Ahhh, you're usage history is very similar to mine.

    I'm glad I made the switch, too. But it wasn't a switch to Vista.

    --
    The finest pieces of software are those where one individual has a complete
    sense of exactly how the program works. To have that, you have to really
    love the program and concentrate on keeping it simple, to an incredible
    degree.
    -- Bill Gates
     
    Linonut, Mar 3, 2008
    #15
  16. Clogwog

    Linonut Guest

    * Notrod peremptorily fired off this memo:
    A very good explication of the upgrade treadmill!
    A very good explication of the upgrade treadmill!
    Yeah, they were probably thinking that the Windows APIs would be about
    as stable as the POSIX APIs by now. The fools.
     
    Linonut, Mar 3, 2008
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.