Windows

10 reasons why Windows 7 could fail

The reviews of Windows 7 have thus far been favorable - so why does Jack Wallen think the new OS may tank? Here's his take on the impending release.

The reviews of Windows 7 have thus far been favorable - so why does Jack Wallen think the new OS may tank? Here's his take on the impending release.


October 22nd is the big day for the official release of the latest iteration of the Windows operating system. Many have dubbed it the savior that will bring the glory days back to Redmond. Many have said that it will pretty much wipe clean the foul stench left behind by Windows Vista. I, and a few others, think that Windows 7 will not be the success most pundits are proclaiming. How can I say that? I will give you 10 reasons why Windows 7 could easily fail.

Note: This article is also available as a PDF download.

1: It's too much like Vista

I have yet to run into a PC user who actually likes Vista. Oh, there maybe a few scattered fanboys out there who have decided that Aero is the prettiest of all interfaces and that the User Access Control is the be-all-end-all of security. The truth of the matter is, Vista is a horrible operating system. And what's going to surprise the public is that Windows 7 is a lot like Vista. Oh sure, Microsoft has made a lot of changes under the hood. But average users won't know that. They will see the Aero interface and the UAC and turn their noses up at the latest offering. And why not? Microsoft should have made a complete 180 from Vista. Instead of improving on Vista, it should have picked up XP (the best of the Microsoft OSes) and given it a boost to hardware recognition and maybe added a prettier interface. Unfortunately, Windows 7 is going to suffer simply because it looks and acts too much like Vista.

2: It will cost too much

People are going to be turned off by the cost of the operating system itself, as well as the cost of the minimum hardware requirements. Yes, if your hardware can run Vista, it can run 7. But most people are still running XP, and that hardware won't cut it with Windows 7. Last I checked, we're still in an economy that has people cutting back. Having to drop extra scratch on both an operating system and a new machine is going to be at the bottom of the list for most people. And most businesses are still clinging to XP.

3: XP is still too popular

Picking up where #2 left off... Windows XP is still the king of Microsoft operating systems. According to a survey done in February 2009, more than 71% of all business machines are still running XP. A Forrester survey had suggested that Windows Vista would overthrow XP as the business operating system of choice. That never happened. And the only way Microsoft will pull XP off of business machines around the world is when it reaches its end of life for support. But did that actually stop users from using Windows 2000 altogether? No. In fact, some people are still clinging to that version of Windows. But overall, XP is still the keeper of the crown for Windows operating systems.

4: The editions are too confusing

Which version of Windows 7 do you want? Oh, you thought Professional sounded like the best, only to find it doesn't have features you need... so maybe it's on to Ultimate. And Starter sounds like it would be a good version to start with -- as in "new to Windows" or "cheapest version." But no, Starter is for netbooks. So you have to look at it like this:

  • Starter is for netbooks.
  • Premium is for those who want next to nothing.
  • Professional is for those who need to work from home and office.
  • Ultimate is what Windows should sell and nothing less.

I remember when Vista came out. Trying to get the version that included my name nearly required the creation of a matrix or a spreadsheet, and still many people came out with the wrong version.

5: No upgrades are available for XP (and Europe)

Hello XP users, you can't upgrade. Only a clean install for you. Which, of course, is smart anyway -- but that means you have to pay full price. And guess what, European countries: Because you won a suit against Microsoft that prevents it from shipping Internet Explorer with Windows, you get no upgrade version for Windows 7. Yes Microsoft is going to offer EU the full version for the upgrade price, but that price will still wind up being close to the full version price, if history repeats itself.

6: It's no good for netbooks

The Starter version of Windows 7 is a joke. Yes, Microsoft did remove the "three apps at a time" restriction. But there are other limitations (beyond the hefty hardware requirements) that make it a poor candidate for netbooks:

  • No streaming media
  • No desktop customizations
  • No legacy app support

The first point is the real killer. Because most users don't want to clog up their limited drive space with multimedia, not being able to stream media means they won't be enjoying their tunes while they work. Too bad, Windows 7 users!

7: Single sign-on apps will fail

As it stands now, applications using biometric, smart card authentication and/or VPN authentication will fail unless they're upgraded. This could be a bad problem if the applications were created in house, or if they aren't upgradeable. The real problem is that many of the companies that create applications that use (or depend upon) single sign-on have not made the leap to Windows 7 support. So if a business depends upon single sign on, Windows 7 is going to be a big problem.

8: There are better alternatives

You knew this was coming. Both OS X and Linux have made strong headway in the market. With modern releases of Linux getting better and ever-more user friendly, the race is on to see what's going to happen. And every time Microsoft makes a misstep, it's another gain for the competition. Windows Vista was a huge misstep, and it's going to take more than a rework of that disaster to keep the competition at bay. As more and more people become disillusioned with Windows, they're going to look for alternatives. I have good news for you disillusioned Windows users: Ubuntu 9.04 is one of the most user-friendly Linux releases to date. And with OS X Snow Leopard's addition of Exchange support, Microsoft should really be concerned.

9: XP Mode may not help you

If you want to run applications that ran on Windows XP but not on Vista, you will have one solution -- virtualization. Here's the problem: If you want to do this, you need a machine with at least 2 Gigs of RAM and a processor that supports on-chip virtualization. XP Mode consists of two pieces: Virtualization software and a fully licensed version of Windows XP. Windows XP does not ship with Windows 7. You will be able to download it for free if you have a licensed version of Windows 7 Professional, Ultimate, or Enterprise. The big issue is the on-chip virtualization. Scott Woodgate, director of Windows enterprise and virtualization strategy, said this about which chips include virtualization support: "Some PCs have it and some don't... It's not as clear as it should be relative to which PCs have support and which don't."

10: You'll have to contend with DRM

Yes, DRM is the bane of users' existence, and Windows 7 includes it. One little bit of DRM is a piece of code whose purpose is to ensure that no "prohibited device" is connected to the machine. By "prohibited device," I mean a device that could be used to record the output. Digital outputs are polled every 30ms, and analog outputs are polled every 150ms. Other "features" also use or require DRM, and most of these are in place in case Hollywood needs them. In other words, Microsoft is giving the recording industry a bit of leverage against the user, should they need it. This will not sit well with the user base, should it show its ugly head.

Your turn

Read enough to make you think twice about migrating to Windows 7? Perhaps not. But with the Windows 7 pitfalls, one of these issues might bite you -- making you wonder why you bothered to "upgrade."

What's your take on Windows 7? Join the discussion and share your thoughts.


Check out 10 Things... the newsletter

Get the key facts on a wide range of technologies, techniques, strategies, and skills with the help of the concise need-to-know lists featured in TechRepublic's 10 Things newsletter, delivered every Friday. Automatically sign up today.

About

Jack Wallen is an award-winning writer for TechRepublic and Linux.com. He’s an avid promoter of open source and the voice of The Android Expert. For more news about Jack Wallen, visit his website getjackd.net.

242 comments
buggaloo
buggaloo

I hate the font smoothing. And because Win 7 uses the WPF to implement everything, you can't completely get rid of it (ie: the font smoothing still shows up on pop-up dialogues, the taskbar, headers, etc...). Until they fix WPF, I'm sticking with XP.

Jahm Mittt
Jahm Mittt

. Hmmmm Bah Humbug.... As THE actual inventor of the term "Crapware" - about Microsoft Products of course... THE best thing I ever did was migrate across to Linux..... I think Microsoft is like buying a lemon car with a great (?) paint job........ I mean I can't just drive it, Nooooooooooooo I have to spend hours under the hood every day, day in and day out, just "looking after it" so it will keep on running.... The MS operating systems that require "going for a drive" not only with a boot load of spares, but also a tow truck and a van full of service technicians..... "OH yay! MS rocks ----- NOT. And MS's security (anything) is not worth 2 dogs rooting in a blizzard.... Copy-pasted from the M$ $tore: Microsoft Signature PCs come with full versions of the software you need, pre-configured and ready to run.* Included are: Internet Explorer 8 Surf the Internet faster, safer, and more easily than ever before Windows Media Center Preconfigured home entertainment shell allowing users to watch/record TV and download videos/shows on PC, manage pictures, movies, music, play stored media from TV and handset; additional configuration included Internet TV Update for Media Center Software update which enables TV playback on PC Playready PC Runtime (for WMC) Allows access to play-ready content Microsoft Security Essentials Automatically updated software that protects against malware, spyware, virus, worms, and other threats to your security Microsoft Silverlight Software for delivering rich Web applications similar to Adobe Flash; Web application run-time Adobe Flash Player for IE Software for viewing Shockwave Flash (SWF) animations and movies using Internet Explorer Adobe Acrobat Reader Software for viewing PDF documents Bing 3D Maps 3D mapping program for Bing Maps Zune 4.0 Music, video, FM radio, and podcast player; provides access to Zune marketplace for music and TV shows Auto Collage 2009 Touch Program for converting photographs into collages Live ID Sign-in Assistant Software utility to link Windows account with Live ID LiveUpload for Facebook (for Photo Gallery) Allows user to upload photos from Live Photo Gallery directly to www.facebook.com Windows Live Essentials Windows Live Call Allows users to make PC-to-PC and PC-to-phone voice and video calls Windows Live Family Safety Software for controlling and monitoring online activities of children Windows Live Mail E-mail client successor to outlook and windows mail; includes Calendar, Contacts, Feeds, Newsgroups Windows Live Messenger Instant Messaging, calling, and video chat program Windows Live Photo Gallery Photo-management software Windows Live Writer Blog-publishing software Microsoft Office Live Add-In Software allowing MS office programs to save files to and access files from a shared online workspace Windows Live Sync File-synchronization program Windows Live Movie Maker Movie-making software Windows Live Toolbar Web browser toolbar to facilitate connection with Windows Live ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That's the spec list.....??????????????? I am now so thrilled with MS's offerings, or is that droppings, I think I have to get off line for a while and cry lest I feel overwhelmed with the urge to make a necklace of bricks and go swimming off a bridge...... Microsoft makes me feel suicidal...... Corporate Moron Bullshit to the Max. Thankyou everyone who ever contributed in anyway towards making LINUX and all it's offerings so good..... Thankyou that I don't ever have to go back to Microsoft EVER again..... Microsoft Orifice 07? AFTER having tried it hard for a few days ??? - I wouldn't use it if I had a FREE version of it with hassle free upgrades for the rest of my life...... In fact if I was given a pirated version it would go in the bin...... All I can say is "I am SO grateful that there is Linux - Ubuntu Linux, and Open Office etc.... I am SOOOO pleased that I can escape from the cash cow for idiots by idiots..... I am looking forward to the release of Windoze 07, as much as I am for dog terds to be made into corn flakes.... Microsoft software and operating systems? PASS.

jlwallen
jlwallen

Hello all. First of all I just wanted to thank you for reading and creating such interesting discussions. That is, after all, one of the greatest aspects of the 'net. The main reason why I thought I should post a reply is not really to defend myself. I do stand by my words (Although I knew when this topic was assigned I would catch a lot of lumps for it...And I do take my lumps.), but I will say that I actually do like Windows 7. Of all the releases from Microsoft Windows 7 has to be the first one I haven't had trouble with. But then, once again, I am a Linux user through and through. But you should look at the title - it is not "10 Reasons why Windows 7 WILL fail" but "10 Reasons why Windows 7 COULD fail". Do I honestly think it will fail? Not really. It has to succeed - Vista was such a nightmare and XP is going away...so what other Microsoft choice is there? But it COULD fail. Just like Vista could have failed (and did), just like XP could have failed (and certainly didn't). Windows 7, however, most likely won't fail. It has outstanding hardware recognition, it's stable, and clean. It is a resource hog and will require beefier hardware - but thankfully hardware is cheaper than it used to be. But again, I will say I come from a Linux background. I am used to a certain release time line, a certain sense that each release will always be better than the prior release, and (as someone pointed out in this discussion) if a release SHOULD fail - it was free. Fortunately very few releases fail. (with the exception of, say, Fedora 9 - that was a serious setback). Anyway - I just wanted to point out a few things, wave the white flag of surrender, and thank everyone for bringing up such excellent points.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

By making changes to key aspects of the Windows OS MS have stopped the XP drivers from working. By insisting companies pay MS to certify drivers, after the company has spent efforts to make the drivers work with the new Windows commands, is pure blackmail. Add in the advertised MS statement, of some months back, that Win 7 will not permit any drivers to work in their 64 bit versions unless signed by MS, and you have a system designed to fail through lack of compatible hardware and not having a wide range of working software. My son is currently using a beta version of Win 7 but has already said he won't be buying a full version when this shuts down on him, as he can't get most of his hardware to work in Win 7 due to lack of drivers, and the companies have stated it isn't worth their while to spend the money on making Win 7 drivers for anything but their newest hardware. MS created this problem, and recently had the hide to abuse the hardware manufacturers for not making 64 Bit drivers for enough of the hardware. Great, guys, real great.

eM DuBYaH
eM DuBYaH

Interesting article. It's helped to put a bigger bad taste in my mouth over W7. Just from my perspective, the Windows hoopla days are over. The excitement over a new OS is long gone. I honestly think Microsoft has became too big in the head with their OS. Truthfully I could really care less. Oh, and soon the big push for the new certs to go with it blah blah blah. It gets old. As a support techie, I feel like a hamster on a wheel with this. Another chance to blow even MORE money. I quit on MCSE 2k. I did get excited over the release of 3.1 and '95. Not any more. My 'good' computer runs just fine. I wasted a LOT of money on Vista Ultimate 64bit and the beefed up hardware to go with it. Machine runs smooth, runs very well actually, not about to waste more money just to say I have W7 on it. For the rest of my computers, 2k, XP and Linux (Ubuntu & Knoppix are my favorite) run very well. My annoyance is the myriad editions of Windows. RIDICULOUS! If you just want to be able to turn on your computer and warm it up, buy 'Starter Edition', if your computer is only for emails and pretty pictures, and no server support, Home is your baby. The list goes on. I'm NOT the only person on the planet that runs a server at home. There should be a single version and that's it. I'm starting to believe W7 will get some flak because of the price and all of the cheaper crippled/useless versions. An OS that works, with everything, pay thru the nose. Save some money - choose which level of useless you can tolerate. A couple hundred bux is really not worth it.

keeneydj
keeneydj

Has been a red-hatter since 4.2? That's quite a while to be a Linux elitist. No wonder why this article stinks. Half the stuff he's talking about up there, I don't even know what he's griping about. Streaming media? What exactly are you trying to stream media from? You tube and the inet players should work fine. That's streaming from the inet. There is always the option of using that flash drive most of us barely use anyway. You can get a USB sata drive. Yeah a netbook might only have about 60GB SSD, but are you considering taking your ENTIRE library with you? Net books aren't about storage/power. They are all about a having a portable internet device that's cheap. Of course it's not going to do all a desktop (or even a full featured laptop) can do. The editions are easy. You get what you pay for. If you go to the microsoft website, they already have a 'spreadsheet' layout for you to look at. If you can't decide what version to use... just save yourself (and others) time and buy a packaged comp. If you don't know what you need, you really shouldn't care. Did XP mode come with the RC1, and I'm just missing something? If you have to CONTEND with DRM, you can do it. You have to be smarter than what you are working with. Go find a hacker and see is they are worried about the new DRM. They aren't. If you are in to bootlegging, it'll never go away. Don't worry. There are programs that will circumvent this. Not that you should be using them, only that's something they won't ever be able to get rid of being so compatible. Xp is junk in todays world. It was great during it's time, but it's time to move on. The very definition of Vista: a distant view through or along an avenue or opening : prospect. Does that not give you the idea of Vista being the trial run of something better to come? The times change constantly, and we have new better software. As far as price goes... I remember when all versions of the single OS makers were putting out were the same price. $300 for Win98 no matter what you needed it for. Now you can go buy oem disks of the Ultimate version for $99. Win7 may start out at full prices, but after oem's get passed around, you'll be able to get it cheaper. Would a commercial license be cheaper than $100 a pop for x number of oems? I have no idea. But who cares. If a business finds a need to upgrade, they will. It's either that or start using paper again. Os'es have always been fairly pricey compared to other software. O'reilly auto parts uses redhat4.2. They won't have to upgrade, but they will continue to have to pay IT ppls to fix their machines. If windows 7 does not blow away all other versions of windows, I'll eat my boot.

skykeys
skykeys

what I think is pathetic is the number of responses to this article. :) IT people are nuts. It's not religion, and there is nothing inherently evil about Microsoft. Vista was not that bad, and Win 7 will probably do fine, and I hope it does. Unless you are a Mac user, there are no serious alternatives to Windows. If Linux was a viable end-user platform, it would have done much better, but it didn't because it's not viable for the average user. Windows 7 is going to do well and I'm happy for it. I'm tired of the religious wars. Windows is a tool, nothing more. The market situation is what it is at this point, so let's just get on with it.

jonc2011
jonc2011

On my system (Dell Inspiron notebook) Vista Business has been BY FAR the best OS I have used. Only needed a reimage after 2 years compared to 6 months for the two XP notebooks I had. And I can do a full OS partition reimage (including all apps) in 30 minutes using the built-in back-up system. Since June 2007 have found nothing I don't like about it that I couldn't fix (I now use Norton UAC), apart from inability to narrow Windows Explorer columns below 80 pixels. So please get off your high (Linux) horse, quit patronizing us and accept that many people now like Vista. No way in the world I would go back to XP. I am confident 7 will be better, and plan to use it for a few years before switching to Linux.

marvin.novello
marvin.novello

Jack! Wake up Jack! The real world is waiting. Do you even read the technical info about any OS apart from Linux? Did you actually use Windows 7 as you primary OS for a couple of weeks before making these ludicrous comments? Your approach to mainstream software is a joke. Your piece is full of factual inaccuracy and biased opinions. I won't waste my time reading your stuff again. Its just an irritant. I have been using Vista for 2 years full time and have absolutely no complaints. I think it is fine. I have been using Windows 7 on my family's laptops for the past 6 months. All 3 of them are around 3 years old, came with XP on them and they run better, faster now than they did with XP. Get a grip.

bowenw
bowenw

I've used Windows 7 since the beta and I'll admit that it is 20X better than Vista (Vista is what you get fromn the north bound end of a south bound horse). I've made more than a few $$ replacing Vista with XP. There are a number of errors in the article, not the least of which is that you CAN get Upgrade pricing for Vista from XP - you just cannot do an upgrade install. However, Microsoft has a number of migration tools that will let you import your settings etc. from XP to Window 7. Now a question: is Windows 7 perfect? Nope, but there has not been an opereating system since the first one that is perfect. With Vista Microsoft got off the rails BIG TIME but I believe with Windows 7 the trolley is back on the rails and it will be a success.

Nsaf
Nsaf

For someone in Afghanista, you speak pretty well but not sure how much of Linux has found it's way into that country...Believe me, I know what I am talking about. I respect the fact that you don't like MS, but don't go calling those who do "moron" or "idiots"...because they have the right to do so, and beside that does not make you sound very smart rather hateful...btw, you do seem to have alot of hate inside....work on that, it'll do you good.

skykeys
skykeys

If you prefer Linux, then fine, just use it and be happy. Yet you have all of this angst against Microsoft. Why? If you were so happy with your Linux environment, you should be reveling about it, rather then vexing with such negativity. It's just software. :)

alfred.nims
alfred.nims

I guess you don't like MS. But you went from Microsoft to the FREE Linux. Not even a stop or pause at Macs? Don't get me wrong free is good and I do use Linux for specific purposes but to say MS is just crap. I think the problem may be that MS is marketing for the majority of people. There are a lot of end user consumer types who like bells and whistles in the things they buy, not just computers either. For the more tech savvy this may be a hindrance but Microsoft is a company like all companies, out to make money. Marketing to the masses and not a niche like Linux and Mac, and that is not an easy job. Hmmm.....

dazone
dazone

4: The editions are too confusing. Add x86 and x64 into the mix. Sure you get both versions with a retailcopy or upgrade, but what about the OEM version that comes with your PC? 7: Single sign-on apps will fail Not sure where you get this info. I've tested the our VPN solution for work using the Cisco VPN client, ActiveIdenty Activecard, and a Smartcard ... all works fine with the same versions I use on XP. Sure if your versions are from the stone age you'll have problems. 11. Pissed off Vista users. Paid full boat price for Vista ultimate, and it cost the same for me to upgrade, as the person with their 8 year old copy of XP ... not to mention no early order discount for Ultimate. Still waiting for those Ultimate "Extras" WTF?

clearstr
clearstr

some of us run more programs than notepad and office. I have thousands of programs installed on my i7 systems. to start from scratch is just impractical. the fact that you can do an in place upgrade from vista just proves that microsoft not allowing in place upgrades from xp to 7 was a choice not a tech issue. I'm curious to see if a third party company will tackle the issue. and spare me the "it's better to install from scratch comments"

Slayer_
Slayer_

Ever reimage a hard drive to have XP say its going to install an unsigned driver. *shutters*

skykeys
skykeys

Toyota has by my count 17 different models of vehicles to choose from. Is that ridiculous? There are eight different versions of Quicken - just for personal finance. Is that ridiculous? Paradigm has five different series of speaker models. Geez, why would you need more than one? Wow, shiver me timbers, there are even different variations of Ubuntu? Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Edubuntu, Mythbuntu, Xubuntu, and Ubuntu Studio. Wow, that's way too many. . . . . . What's ridiculous here is the entire conversation.

Dogcatcher
Dogcatcher

"Xp is junk in todays world." An interesting perspective, but wrong. Most of the work that is done on computers (e-mail, web browsing, and document creation) does not require fancy hardware or the latest version of your favorite operating system. Sure there are people who have a real need for the fastest hardware or the most feature-rich software the world can produce, but most of us do quite well with products that are not fresh off the production line. Embrace Windows 7 if you wish, but while you are enjoying it try to understand that people whose needs differ from yours may not see as much value in Windows 7 as you do.

Brian Doe
Brian Doe

"If windows 7 does not blow away all other versions of windows, I'll eat my boot. " pixplzkthxbai Okay, seriously: Define "blow away". Are you talking purely subjective judgments of usefulness of features and system performance? Or are you talking objective terms such as measurable market share?

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

"not viable" alternative may be rather subjective. Mandriva and Debian have been not viably covering all my needs for years now including multimedia, networking, security defense and testing, document/spreadsheet/database needs, communications including email and skype, browsing including flash... There is a quickly decreasing list of areas where the platform is truly "not viable" but we don't all run DirectX video games or use AutoCAD at home.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

So you've taken a more secure OS, designed to optimize files on a multicore processor and replaced it with an 8 year old OS that was the worst OS to date (except WinME) for the first two years of it's existence. Did you brainwash your clients into think Vista was junk too? The benchmark tests done by a peer here, TK, showed that XP was only marginally faster in one or two tests, when comparing several builds stripped down and bloated, with and without service packs etc. on the same machine. When you add the beneficial user features like breadcrumbs navigation, Vista walks all over XP. The problem is that Vista, just as with XP, needs some tweaking time to get it exactly how you want it. Of course now that XP is ancient and outdated twice by superior OS's, people forget what a steaming pile of shite XP was and just bitch that something new needs to be tweaked to match something that has been tried and tested for the best part of a decade already. VERY clever indeed. You know the old Ford Model A took a lot less effort than a new F-150 to keep tuned too, but that doesn't mean we need to revert to days of yore in order to satisy our laziness. And you consult and recommend for your clients too? They need to learn how to read for themselves I guess. So, without just parroting the same old lies and bullsh*t about Vista, what is it that you specifically found was flawed in the operating system that XP resolves for your clients that you've so happily ripped off for a downgrade? Seriously I've seen so many of you guys, When the customer complains about Vista speed, "XP is better, I'll downgrade it for you and that'll solve your problems." A real technician: "Vista is just as good, in fact there are some really useful features that XP didn't have. A little bit of tweaking and optimizing and I'll have it running like a top in no time. This way your system is more secure, easier to navigate and even easier to use than before too." If you think it's clever and that XP is great, just remember that it was horrific when released, the exact same BS has been floating around over every new MS operating system released since Win3.11 for workgroups.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

Given the differences between XP and Vista/win7 I'm less likely to consider it a business strategy. I can see business reasons to do so but I think this one has more to do with differences in software. An example would be those winXP friendly apps which are going to implode when run under a later version. Thousands of apps installed simply increases the chances of upgrades going very badly for you. And yes, I'm one of those that would suggest a clean install. It may not be the advise you want to hear but upgrade installs have yet to be a good way to move between Windows versions. Maybe Vista to win7 does it better but nothing in the past has. Suck it up. Take the day to do your install right with a clean install and well managed safe file structure. You may find that some of those thousands of programs are no longer applicable to how you computer also.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

one of the biggest problems we have down here is stopping MS Windows (in many versions) from destroying perfectly good and working unsigned drivers to install signed drivers that don't work. The single biggest problem is for modems and anything else on the POTS - what we use here in Australia is very close to what they use in the USA, but it has a few commands a little different. The MS Windows Wizards see the unsigned local drivers as faulty and replaces them with signed USA drivers that just don't work here. The best answer we have to date for the modems is to set them to NOT look for a dial tone first and a few other tweaks that disable the different POTS command signals within the Windows. These aren't the only ones we have this sort of an issue with, either. A lot of older hardware works perfectly well with the unsigned drivers from the manufacturers, too. And there are a few from third party mobs that work well also.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

Eight versions of Quicken for personal finances is a little ridiculous. It's like Campbel selling eight different tomato soups where the key difference is the label colour and flavor name. Now, if each Quicken where for a different regional set of accounting laws then it may make sense; Quicken Personal Canadian vs Quicken Personal American. In general, choice is a good thing though. Having more choice is not usually a problem. With Windows, it seems to be more about selling the same product at different price points. Not Toyota having 17 different models of vehicle but 8 different versions of the same vehicle which permit drastically different uses as you buy your way up the hierarchy. Toyota Prius Ultimate will go for miles on a drop of fuel and a full battery charge but Prius Starter best not be driven beyond the corner store and back. Some see it as paying only for the features you'll use. Others see it as crippling the fully functional version add synthetic version differences. If the prices at newegg hold steady and win7 Ultimate remains available at 199$ then appears much more reasonable than the 400$'ish expected price. With Connonical's distributions, I think one difference is also that they provide a starting point with the complete platform library availability included. Each has a specific focus but then can all use the same repositories to be built into the same feature set. One can install Xubuntu then add and swap all the relevant program packages to end up with Kubuntu with no additional license cost. At least with win7 (Vista too likely), one can unlock the higher license levels with the primary difference being the upgrade license purchase rather than install disk content.

keeneydj
keeneydj

You can browse with Flash support! That's it! I'm getting Linux! I always hoped and dreamed of checking my email, and browsing webpages with flash! I bet you can even listen to an mp3 in that OS too! OMG!! Everyone jump to Linux quick! I hear rumors it has support for Flash!

GreatZen
GreatZen

Let me begin by saying that I have used Vista Ultimate x86 on my primary work laptop since very near the release of Vista. I am an IT Consultant and I support business end users as well as build new machines and provide tech support to home users. Vista, while more secure and technically as fast as XP in the benchmarks (yes, even since early versions), featured horrendously unstable drivers on a wide variety of new and old platforms for more than a year. Were users who purchased Vista to upgrade their existing computers stupid/lazy/luddite because they wanted their computers to be stable during the 12 months it took for many vendors (ATI, nVidia, 3com, Intel and Creative Labs come to mind) to produce Vista drivers for devices which were produced before the Vista APIs were final? Nope, they were perfectly reasonable and acting prudently and intelligently when they paid someone to revert their computers to the most stable OS available to them. For MANY hardware configurations, there was no other alternative to downgrading to achieve stability. If you continue to insist otherwise, it will clearly show that you either have little experience in the real world or had the good fortune to work in one of the very, very rare environments that had no hardware/driver issues when upgrading to vista. Also, you continually compare Vista to XP based on their relative maturity in their independent timelines. The topic is totally irrelevant as no one was choosing between Vista pre-SP1 and XP pre-SP1 and then removing all the XP drivers from the universe. The fact is that Vista was and is competing with XP as a mature, stable OS. Additionally, the fact remains that Vista is significantly harder for novice users to network at home. In XP (in home environments) you share a folder and it's there waiting to be accessed. In Vista, home users share a folder and can't even find the computer that's sharing it, let alone find the folder, let alone find the files inside the folder! Think I'm crazy? *Microsoft doesn't.* The Homegroup was specifically added to Windows7 to address the fact that virtually NO home users were able to share files without resorting to external drives! Finally, XP continues to have FAR more 3rd party vendor support in every area than Vista. This is not a small thing! Let's take one trivial little application. Find a free utility to benchmark read/write speeds for a a USB flash device in Vista. And if you think you can use the ReadyBoost certification process and a little bit of event viewer to do the same job... think again. Not only is it a poor substitute for a real program (that can say... save and compare results), but the quality of benchmarking provided by the software is woefully inaccurate and will report a wide range of speeds for the same device in repeated tests. Anyway, my point is that not everyone who "rejects" Vista is a crazed XP lover who resists change. Keep in mind that anyone who downgraded FROM Vista once upgraded TO Vista-- you aren't dealing with people who are terribly afraid of change and have their head in the sand. Quit pretending you are.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

The now matured and much more stable XP or the currently immature buggy Vista with more bling than functional improvements over the previous OS version. For many people, replacing Vista with XP has been the right choice. Given the market forces which have driven Microsoft to extend the winXP end of life a few times now, it doesn't seem like the market was demanding a new Windows version. It's not just a few software hippies and IT nuts holding on to winXP. Now, replacing win7 with XP may not be the wisest choice. We'll see on October and after for sure. But Vista.. yeah.. there was many good reasons why MS quickly moved on and users moved back.

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

you assume MS really give a damn about drivers and their production, they don't. They only care about maximising their profits by locking you into their software and hardware from their approved suppliers who give them big kickbacks to be approved. By setting the 64 bit systems to not allow the use of any non-approved drivers, they greatly limit what you can use in the way of hardware or do with the system, while putting pressure on the hardware company to pay them to check and approve the drivers - at a great profit to MS. In a recent e-week article they had a piece about MS abusing the hardware manufacturers for not writing MS Windows 64 bit drivers fast enough, as that limited people taking up 64 bit Windows. But MS never offered to reduce the multi thousand dollar approval fees, or set Windows to allow the use of unsigned drivers, or not change the command sets so new drivers would have to be written and approved again. Kind of hypocritical if you ask me, they put all sorts of obstacles in the way, then abuse the others for hitting them. Oh, they still allow unsigned drivers in the 32 bit versions, but Vista and Win 7 won't run properly on any of the old 32 bit hardware as they don't have the proper code to run on those older chip sets either. So you can still use some unsigned rivers on a 32 bit OS sitting on the latest 64 bit hardware, and thus greatly under utilise the hardware due to the software restrictions not being able to use the hardware properly - think RAm limitations to start with.

Slayer_
Slayer_

For example, no more latest Beta's from nVidia, cause they won't be signed. Also, no more drivers waiting to be tested, the less that actually gets done. I still suspect there will be a quick and constant supply of hacks to prevent this. Because no matter what, it is a problem. What if I'm in the business of building and testing drivers? I'm fked?

Deadly Ernest
Deadly Ernest

setting the system to not allow unsigned drivers is really a case of telling the user they MUST only deal with MS and their approved suppliers of hardware and software - it's against the law on commercial behaviour in some jurisdictions, but MS just argue it's them protecting their rights to get money by screwing clients harder. If they get away with it, it also makes it harder for people to NOT be locked down with MS - which is their long term aim and something they've been moving towards for over a decade already. It's another step towards forced Secured Computing via the back door.

Slayer_
Slayer_

To supposedly boost the USB speed. Seems to work too. But not allowing unsigned drivers seems very communist. Though I am sure there will quickly be a hack to fix the problem.

santeewelding
santeewelding

Course materials on how to cut someone off at the knees with more violence than you apparently have yet to learn.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

The point was simply that the platform offers the same functions and content types as any other platform and that "viable" may be a little subjective. But hey, if responding with exaggerated sarcasm as if I suggested it was the second coming is what floats your boat then who am I to stop you.. just don't expect me to take you seriously.

alfred.nims
alfred.nims

You guys are arguing over nothing. I and family (2 adults, 2 teens)are using Vista on 3-4 year old laptops and it works fine. The company I work for is also using Vista even with home-grown apps and it works fine. I personally also use XP, Vista, Windows 7 and Ubuntu and they all work fine. Grow up all of these OSs work and work well. I have no real complaints on any of them but minor annoyances with all of them. Time to end this crazy arguing; no one is going to change their opinion.

Slayer_
Slayer_

And especially no reason to force your opinions on others, no matter how wrong they might be :)

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

You bet.. my point in the beginning when this became a serious back and forth was that XP was the right choice at Vista launch and now that Vista is stable just in time for win7 launch the better choice is to skip Vista. My point in the end was that XP was the right choice at Vista launch and now that Vista is stable just in time for the win7 launch the better choice is to skip Vista. The difference being that win7 RC and early retails are showing it to be pretty mature at launch time and by the time companies have done the change over planning, it'll have had it's initial rounds of patches for what is discovered. Yup.. that's definately a classic case of someone changing there story to sound like they where agreeing all along. If that helps you sleep better at night they call it how you like. Now, if it's not a great imposition for you, I'm going to accept that we have common ground but disagree on other points.. then I'm going to move on..

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Its one of those typical cases when someone runs full circle to make it appear that he had said the same thing all along, ut it clearly isn't.

Slayer_
Slayer_

You guys both seem to be thinking the same things, why argue? And my thoughts, for a IT Dept in a company, is it not the responsible thing to do to look for ways around spending money? if you don't require an upgrade, then why spend the money? For home users, how are home users managing to avoid Vista, unless they somehow have copies of XP and license keys handy. Considering most venders just provide recovery CD's, I find this point interesting.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

"IT should be spending money to move XP machines to Vista now rather than win7..." Not what I said at all, in fact I said the opposite, I said they will now jump on Win7 and say how smart they were for avoiding Vista. "IT should instead go to Vista now when business needs are being met by XP because it's the new flavor finally stable after retail release." BS, I've used Vista since long befor eSp1 and it has worked flawlessly. Many others here have said the same. My point is many people AVOIDED Vista based on heresay and not factual information. "I think the reason this particular comment sent the discussion spiraling down was the generalization and suggestion that IT is staffed with irresponsible and plotting folk interested in CYA strategies rather then if the current system is covering the business needs." That is also a fact as we have seen people here say many times themselves and without any valid or accurate reaosn for such decisions. "It suggests that if your not recommending the move to Vista now but instead considering win7 as an option, your obviously bad at IT. They are just bending to peer pressure unless it's your peer pressure towards Vista." like I said, you have NO comprehension skills whatsoever. I never said anythign of teh sort, once again your are assuming and creatign false arguments by reading into a comment and not recognizing what was actually said. "I agree that a tech who used Vista for an hour and made a final decision on it's viable use needs to rethink there evaluation process." I've been reading those exact comments here from all kinds of people, for a couple of years now and THAT'S exactly what I was referrign to. I know yuo didn't pick that up, as your reading and comprehension skills seem to fail you more often than not, but that's not my fault. The difference here is, I stand by my comments and they are suported by peers here that have made the exact comments I speak of, as well as many in my personal experience do too. Your idiotic assertions are easily challenged and then you just say it was irrelevant or not important. However you stated it in rebuttal as if it was important, valid or relevant. Tme ot give it up, you're just not very good at deating your point or contesting another with facts or a valid supporting argument. You just seem to bitch and moan for the sake of bitching and moaning. Done, not interested in discussing your irrelevant and invalid points any firther.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

" But after begging for budget for several years, techs couldn't do it again without admitting that they had made a mistake in pushing for XP so near to end of life. So they had to be cool and say Vista is shite, wait for Win7 (perhaps the added few years and HOPEFULLY a stripped down system would allow them to upgrade again). So now their dreams have been answered, they have a new flavour, they can put it off for a few more years while others get going. They can say how clever they were by waiting for Win7. They can then make a solid case and say it's finally time to upgrade from the crap they convinced the CFO to buy so near to end of life before. I see IT guys like I see marketing companies, except they aren't as good at it as most marketing teams. They THINK they are puting one over on the bosses that simply don't know any better, but all they do is follow their peers. " So Vista wasn't rough as all get out previous to the service packs, IT people where just workign a cover-up about the winXP change-over. IT should be spending money to move XP machines to Vista now rather than win7 which will have received it's first patches by the time change planning started now is ready to begin the cutover. IT should instead go to Vista now when business needs are being met by XP because it's the new flavor finally stable after retail release. I think the reason this particular comment sent the discussion spiraling down was the generalization and suggestion that IT is staffed with irresponsible and plotting folk interested in CYA strategies rather then if the current system is covering the business needs. It suggests that if your not recommending the move to Vista now but instead considering win7 as an option, your obviously bad at IT. They are just bending to peer pressure unless it's your peer pressure towards Vista. I agree that a tech who used Vista for an hour and made a final decision on it's viable use needs to rethink there evaluation process. I can't agree that the majority of cases of choosing to not follow the MS treadmill and move to Vista where because of a couple of minutes clicking the mouse and a snap decision.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I have NEVER said people should be pushed into Vista. I said people shouldn't be so quickly pushed AWAY from Vista when they have the slightest issues with it, instead of fixing the install, tweaking it to run efficiently etc. Stop making up arguments that aren't there. Perhaps if you read my posts to others, instead of just waitign for something to debate regardless of if you're right or wrong, you'd be more ontrack with people's actual views and wouldn't resort to making it all up. I have nothing more to add, you can make up your own arguments to debate your inconsistent and incorret points all you like, it doesn't make you right. In each case where you made some absurd assertion and were proven wrong, you either say it wasn't relevant (why did you bother saying it then) or that I am making something out of nothing. If your comments are either irrelevant or nothing, then STFU and say nothing.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

TEh reasons cited are that a person had tried it for half an hour and given up then reverted all further user machines, not from eth same company of ocurse, to XP. Poeple buy a new machine, oviously that is NOT a busienss speakign of legacy apps etc., and if they have any problems they are downgraded by some great and knoledgable tech who says it's the best resolution. Wrong. The newer OS is designed to optimize process management in the newer processor, XP is not. You are NOT going to try and push on me the ONLY valid argument XP users have, which is that legacy apps and older hardware may not be compatile with a newer OS. I have said repeatedly myself that in such a case ther is no need to upgrade anyway. taht some companies need ot get their other software upto date first. Don't even try to go there, you are WAAAAAAAY off base and waaaaay off topic too. You can't make up arguments from people in order to justify your own BS. Most people that buy a new PC for personal use are is told to downgrade to Vista to resolve simple issues like lags, processor useage etc. are wrongfully downgraded when essentially they have just ought a retail system that is commonly underpowered and just needs a stick of RAM added to it, or the system optimized properly. You can't fool me for a second that people don't downgrade users as soon as they have teh first issue with Vista they are told Xp will resolve all thier problems. It's lazy administration, instead of proactive results that make it work properly.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

The case fell out of the news quite a while back and with that chipset now being several generations old, didn't remember it until reminded by the Vista discussion on hardware issues. With your mention of pushy sales staff, we can agree that unethical retailers pushing underpowered hardware on users while promising it'd do the trick is wrong.. but IT people not recommending the jump to Vista is irresponsible? This goes back to your long rant on the rampant poor recommendations IT people make. I think we're probably done in this thread also as it's not likely that any additional information of value is going to come out of it.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I've een VERY clear on this several times and across several posts wher ethis has come up in the past. If people have a viable reason for not NEEDING to upgrade that's fine. However what we see here, and mos everywhere else, is poeple saying that Vista is useless and THAT's why they are stickign with XP. Thye then list a list of ridiculous, inapplicable and incorrect reasons, as teh OP did here. I have gone out of my way mreo than once to explain that you don't HAVE to upgrade, so people whining about HCL are doing so for no reason. I've also explained taht Vista does have many user benefits that are often overlooked by IT staff as they often only consider what they read online and ignore not the needs of the usrs who may benefit from such improvements. Vista Ready: That clas saction suit was denied becaus eit was proven false an inapplicale as people complaints were not consistent. The descriptions of each stage of READY, CAPABLE ETC. (you'd e referring to Vista Capable not Vista Ready in teh case o fhardware noncompliancy)are clearly defined on MS's website and have been for years now. People who were conned into buying substandard machines by retailers looking to make a buck are not the problem nor responsibility of MS. Retailers have teh onus of explaining a system's limitations and the required upgrades to make it run optimally, nto teh software vendor, they just state their minimum requirements ot meet each level of compatibility. Capable simply mean tthat it will run te hcore experince, offer teh added securtity of Vista, it doesn' tmean it'll work with legacy apps and hardware, aeroglass and other visual features seemlessly. Just do your homework and it's all clearly explained by Microsoft. Most people don't even look at the new features list, they just see NEW MS OS and go for it or start repeating the lies about it's shortcomings. Your assumptions of what I implied is your problem, what isn't said simply isn't said, no matter what you feel it "implies".

GreatZen
GreatZen

"So you've taken a more secure OS, designed to optimize files on a multicore processor and replaced it with an 8 year old OS that was the worst OS to date (except WinME) for the first two years of it's existence. Did you brainwash your clients into think Vista was junk too?" You clearly imply that for anyone to revert to WindowsXP, they had to be brainwashed by an irresponsible technician.

GreatZen
GreatZen

I was specifically addressing users who upgraded to Vista as that was the top the previous user had been addressing. We were talking about users who paid to have XP put BACK on their machines-- implying they once had XP on them and were therefore upgrades. Also keep in mind that anyone who bought a new computer with Vista could not buy a retail box version of WindowsXP since XP RB was off the market shortly after Vista release (I want to say 3 months off the top of my head). They also could not buy an OEM version which means that after the first few months, there was no legal path for someone to downgrade a new computer.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

The issue of missing hardware drivers in the beginning alone justifies many of those downgrades. The "Vista Ready" Intel hardware issue alone stung a lot of people. I comment here only because I was waiting to see your response regarding the hardware issues and such. Regarding how you did respond, your comments could be read to suggest those who didn't upgrade where wrong though you never stated explicitly that everyone should have upgraded. It may not have been your meaning but it was how the points came across.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

Savvy users also downgraded. Stability, incompatibility with required software, missing drivers. It wasn't like the downgrading was done blindly on some personal whim in all cases. The one thing I will agree with is your issue with people who make a final decision after five minutes of poking around. I wouldn't agree with universally downgrading users without them making that choice either. I don't think the ill reception of Vista was nearly as unjustified as you suggest either though.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

That's my point, most who downgrade are not savvy users, thus they pay others to do it for them. They are as we've seen in this thread also, told to downgrade y some idiot tech who gave Vista 30 minutes of his time before jumpign on teh 'Vista sucks' bandwagon, based mainly on what peers have said. As we have seen in this discussion, one guys downgraded all users because..... (his reasons were false and misguided based on what was parroted online). THEY didn't choose to downgrade, thier 'knowledgeable tech' recommended it. Many of those users, if Vista was tweaked for them like XP is, would not see any difference from using XP at all, except some new handy user features that help them speed up their work each day. That's my whjole point here, poepl emake recommendationsto others, or to companies without properly investigating, testing and evaluating it. They'll give it a few minutes and then figure all the hype on the internet was correct and they ditch it withotu further consideration. When yuo guys get off your defensive stand, you may just start to see clearly again and understand what peopl eare saying. Your instant defense of what hasn't even been said proves that you don't properly consider before acting. You just assume you know what is being said by thinking of what others have said and you have your defense all prepared and ready to go, whether it applies or not.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

You created an argument that was never out forth. I have NEVER EVER said that everyone SHOULD upgrade to anything. NOT EVER. Your point is moot.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

True, most people baught machines pre-installed with Vista. And, having experience with XP, requested Vista be replaced with it.

ultimitloozer
ultimitloozer

"Keep in mind that anyone who downgraded FROM Vista once upgraded TO Vista" Very not true! Most people who downgraded from Vista got it on a new machine. They did NOT upgrade their OS, they bought a new box.

Brian Doe
Brian Doe

I keep seeing this over and over again in your posts here, to the point where your Vista advocacy is taking on Fanboy proportions. I will admit, Vista is not a bad OS; but it's not a good OS, either. Even Microsoft was quick to try to sweep it under the rug by short-fusing Win7 development when even their Mojave campaign failed to boost sales. Some things that caused Vista to fail in the consumers' eyes: - Failed promises: A lot of features promised for Vista had to be dropped because it was becoming too complicated and costly to try to implement them. In addition, Microsoft's promise that "nearly all PCs on the market today [in 2005] will run Windows Vista" was only realized if one turned off all of the features that make Vista Vista. - Increased hardware requirements: While each successive version of Windows always upped the hardware ante compared to its predecessors, they still ran reasonably well on what was considered average equipment at the time. However, when Vista was released, only a tiny percent of computers available were able to take full advantage of Vista's new features. The increase in hardware requirements, along with gross misuse of the "Vista Capable" logo, was so severe that it brought on a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft (Kelley et al v. Microsoft Corporation). - Too much time between upgrades: Windows XP enjoyed nearly six years of life before its replacement became available. This is arguably the longest any OS has gone without a major update. This allowed users to become overly comfortable with XP. This, in part, has fed the resistance against change. - Significant changes to the architecture, including the adaption of a new kernel, led to significant compatibility issues early on in Vista's life. Much (but not all) of these issues were addressed by the time SP1 hit the streets, but by then it was too late to undo the negative stigma Vista had acquired as a result. To add insult to injury, the two major video card manufacturers, ATI and nVidia, were not fully prepared for Vista's release, and game performance suffered early on as a result of poor-quality WDDM drivers. - Protected Video Path: The DRM, new with Vista, that the OP did a poor job of referencing in his article. Read up on it - it's a real doozy! Despite the comfort level people have acquired with XP, it was becoming boring. As you stated, XP had become "long in the tooth" by the time Vista development began. When beta testing was made available to the public, Vista was so anticipated by those growing tired of XP that over five million copies of the beta were downloaded, according to Microsoft. XP users wanted change; but by the time the novelty of Vista's eye candy wore off, many of them decided that they were better off sticking with XP. While some of the bad rap Vista has gotten was due to FUD, the vast majority of it was well-earned through negative user experience. You can minimize this all you want, but it won't change the facts that Vista was, at the least, too much (change) too fast. As of August 2009, Windows XP accounted for nearly 72 percent of the total OS market share (Windows, as a whole, had 93 percent), with Vista only accounting for 18 percent (Hitslink, 2009). Are you suggesting that nearly three-quarters of all the computer users in the world are so easily swayed by FUD campaigns? Or are you willing to admit that Vista failed because it did not live up to customer expectations, made unrealistic thanks to Microsoft's overly-aggressive marketing tactics?

Brian Doe
Brian Doe

...regarding XP holdouts are amusing, to say the least. You're clearly involved in sales, and it shows. While I don't see the point in wholesale downgrades to XP, your method of shoving Vista down people's throats and calling them whiny sheep if they complain is even more appalling. When it comes to IT, you are in over your head, as you demonstrate here: "Just because nerds were outcasts for decades, it doesn't mean that because IT is grudgingly accepted now that all of a sudden IT staff are the gurus of the modern business world. Most don't even seem to realize that they are just a company expense and tha they don't actually bring in the revenue that keeps the doors open and generates their paychecks. (of course not including businesses solely focused on e-commerce). " Since you so wholeheartedly believe IT is just an expense created to justify nerds' existence, I have a proposition for you: Take your computer and chuck it out the window. Then see how well you do your job without one.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

It's possible with the amount of drawn out back and forth. I'm open to the possibility. My point from the start was that sticking to XP when Vista launched was the right choice for many. Now with win7 launch showing a remarkably stable MS pre SP1 holding onto XP for six more months then going to win7 is the right choice for many. heck, change planning and testing is probably in the six month or little more range so it's not such an unreasonable idea I don't think. Your responce was that I'm flat out wrong followed by a long winded explenation of how you've no respect of IT people - they being full of the same mud-spin as marketing but not able to sell it nearly as well as the marketing folk. If your point was that sticking with XP at Vista launch made sense but Vista is now a viable option then great. You could have simply said that including the suggestion of why win7 was not a viable option. Anyhow, here the last paragraph also applies: http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-13583-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=317865&messageID=3173721

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Seriously, you read and reply but yoru reponses are so off ase with what is initially said, you either have preconclusions in your head or you simply don't understand/comrpehend what you read. I honestly don't know where to start with this one, you are SO far off of what I actually said it's just plain scary to think that your knowledge guides others. I didn't say you had to use or even SHOULD be using Vista. I simply said that Vista is NOT the junk people make it out to e, it is a very useful OS that is stomped on with false claims of its shortfalls and too many pople simply listen to that and repeat it as if it is actuallly true. If XP works for yuo that's super duper! Enjoy your OS. Vista is NOT flawed in many of the ways people claim it is though, simply put, it gets a ad rap for no reason at all. It was far better upin release than previous MS Os's have been, it's more secure, more stable and far easier as far as hardware copatibility than XP was too. Just because WIn7 is comin out, it doesn't make Vista any less of a player in the market. As I've said all along, now that techs are starting to realize that Vista really ISN'T garbage and XP is getting long in the tooth, they HAVE to look out for Win7 as the answer to all issues because they'd be eating crow otherwise and they would be proven to be liars when they said to avoid Vista because of all it's falsely represented shortcomings. Now they can just say, "PHEW glad we waited for Win7, this is much better now!" Downplaying the fact that Vista was a great OS too.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

A retail company does rely on sales staff for profits and I can see how loosing one would cause such a decrease per month. This does not mean that every type of business relies so heavily on that staff position or that IT is no better than long term temps in every case. A staffer with an over-inflated sense of importance within the organization is also not unique to IT.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

"When XP launched, win2K was mature and providing users need. Users who tried it (XP) BEGGED for Win2K to be installed. No one was forced to downgrade" So it's differen't now, is it?" It's not at all different. That's my point. When win2k was mature and winXP was shiny and new, the correct business choice was to stick with win2k while winXP matured after retail release. When winXP was matured and Vista was shiny and new the correct business choice was to stick with winXP while Vista matured. Win7 launch was pushed up in response to the poor reception of Vista. Now the currect business choice is to keep the stable WinXP and give Win7 a bit of time to mature after retail launch. - WinXP is still getting updates and is pretty stable now. - Vista is a short release already superseded by the next major version. - Win7 will have been matured through public use by the the time the current winXP installs A, require replacement or addition to support staff growth OR B, benefits from win7 against later server upgrades justify the change. Regardless of how much you disagree, Vista is off the table but Win7 is in the lab and will be the next option for consideration. To stick with your car analogy. Ford has the 2008 and 2009 versions of the car available now and the price of both cars is so close there is no real difference. Ford is going to provide you maintenance service with the garage for both models but the 2009 service plan lasts longer than the 2008 model's plan. Your going to suggest all else being equal, the 2008 model is what you'll be spending your money on and you'll never question that decision even when your neighbor's 2009 model continues to enjoy the maintenance service but you do not? My users are amazed when I show them file find searches of the shared drive and your demanding I blindly dump them into a completely new interface and paradym of managing storage? I'd love to have an office full of powerusers for which that kind of change would be a benefit but it's not realistic. Honestly, I'd much rather be able to say "heck yeah, give me the budget to buy a new OS license for each workstation, a new server license, cals along with time to go through orientation for all the users and have our support contractor flip the whole company over to the new Windows." I actually had someone asking about what to buy with a personal notebook. winXP is no longer available for retail, Vista is the pre-install and in a month win7 is going to be out. Vista started out pretty rough but has matured more by now but if you wait a month you can get the same machine with win7 on it. They chose to wait a month and for my own personal purchase, I'd have made the same decision (I'd have chosen different hardware from a different retailer but that's separate). If everyone not jumping into Vista simply because it's there is such an affront to you'll need to deal with those feelings on your own. "I am not saying computers and IT staff are not important, as you seem to be defending aimlessly. I am saying that IT staff often seem to think that they are the backbone of a company and that without them the company would quickly fail. They throw their weight around as if they are in the know and all others are just dum users, especially the boss who doesn't even like to read his email on the screen and prints everything out before reading it." I know many IT staff who are going out of there way to benefit the other staff and just support the business needs. I think the problem with this was that you overgeneralized the initial statement of it as if you are the only It staffer doing it right. There are also many companies who rely heavily on there information systems and could very easily shut down if the systems went down. It's great that your company can simply flip back to paper and a single fax machine but that is becoming the anomaly. This is not by the want and manipulation of IT staff either. But the key point before you started throwing in all the stuff about IT staffers being no better than marketing sales calls remains that jumping into Vista was not the correct choice at the time of launch and win7 is proving to be worth skipping Vista for. How you choose to do it is between you and your boss/clients though so fantastic for you if your company had wanting users and justification for a Vista rollout. You simply can state that this would be the right choice universally for everyone else though.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Does it come to you at night or do you make it up as you go? [i]"When Vista launched, winXP was mature and providing user needs. Users who tried it asked for winXP to be installed. No one was forced to downgrade."[/i] When XP launched, win2K was mature and providing users need. Users who tried it (XP) BEGGED for Win2K to be installed. No one was forced to downgrade" So it's differen't now, is it? Why do car manufacturer's build new models when the last one was working fine for people? Is it because they improve over time and offer enw features that customers, new and old will like or benefit from? Your mentality is that if an OS works well, the manufacturer should stop further production beyond improving on the last base OS. Is that why you have been so successful with your business? No great beneit to the business? From making such a statement, I assume that you explore each and every role in the office, determine which users features may help some staff increase thier production and have found that they wouldn't benefit form any of the new Vista features. Personally i have found several features that speed up my ability to recover information and provide it to clients in a faster manner than previous versions fo Windows. My boss benefits from MY incerases productivity, as do I in my paychecks. [i]"Being an early adopter on the latest marketing release or trend doesn't make you better unless there is a tangible benefit."[/i] I have never said otherwise, in fact I have said just that myself. If XP works for youm then stick with it. i have NEVER said everyone will seek greater benefits by usinVista, there are many reasons why a company would not change. That is the job of IT to PROPERLY evaluate and decide what is best, as you will notice i have said repeatedly that it is often simply dismissed due to what people read or here and they are NOT properly evaluating a product while considering the possible benefits to all users. Stop making up your own arguments based on common arguments from Windows fanboys! Man, you could stand in a corner and argue with yorself! [i]"As for the IT is just a janitor with over-inflated ego, ever been in an office when the mail server goes down? Sure, not dearly as important as a toilet not flushing but wow do the users ever come knocking on the door to find out why they can't email. You know a lot of business over five people that will simply go back paper filing while you take your time fixing the unimportant computer systems?"[/i] I didn't say IT staff was a janitor with an over inflated ego. I said that IT staff consider themselves the backbone of an opeation and that they are not seen as anythign more than a company expense. they are not the revenue that drives the company. Yes I've managed a mail server for 30 users and I have seen teh complaints when it goes down. That doesn't make me a revenue generator though, just the guy that fizes stuff. The company I worked for had been around 35 years, until 1998 they didn't even have an email server. I wonder how they ever made it that far without me! [i]"You know a lot of business over five people that will simply go back paper filing while you take your time fixing the unimportant computer systems?"[/i] Yes, in fact i work for one. When our own network is down, we instantly start using a triplicate paper order system for orders until after hours when I can get to getting the server back up and running. Email ? I have a fax on my desk and it is used regularly and if mail is down, I just fax stuff around instead. Sometimes those orders never do get put into the accounting software and stay in paper form right through to the invoicing process. I am not saying computers and IT staff are not important, as you seem to be defending aimlessly. I am saying that IT staff often seem to think that they are the backbone of a company and that without them the company would quickly fail. They throw their weight around as if they are in the know and all others are just dum users, especially the boss who doesn't even like to read his email on the screen and prints everything out before reading it. However those people, which make p a great deal of today's IT staff, couldn't be more wrong. You can replace IT staff with ore IT staff anytime, they are a disposale expense, in most cases. Now try replacing a good purchasing agent, accounts receivables staff, top sales reps, sales manager etc. THAT can really hurt a company in the short and long term as these people are NOT easy to find and THEY are teh ones putting the dollars in the bank for the company. Point in short: I've seen a company that go from generating millions a month into generating thousands a month, just because a good sales manager walked out. When the IT staff were cut back due ot revenue loss (note it wasn't admin staff, sales staff, shippers, service technicians) and a temp was called in as needed, there was no loss of revenue at all but it greatly reduced company expenses while they went through several sales managers again looking for the best fit.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

When Vista launched, winXP was mature and providing user needs. Users who tried it asked for winXP to be installed. No one was forced to downgrade. There was no great increased benefit to the business in pushing Vista on the users either. Vista has matured but winXP is still getting updates and by the time winXP replacement is required, win7 will have finished baking through public use. Being an early adopter on the latest marketing release or trend doesn't make you better unless there is a tangible benefit. If it was just about IT stroking it's own shtick, look at moving the systems to a more unix like OS; management would be much easier. Neither that or Vista is the right choice though. If it's the right choice for your users then that's fantastic but it doesn't negate what's best for users who don't jump on the latest bandwagon. In six months when your users installing Vista now ask why you didn't suggest waiting a month or two for win7 what back-peddeling will you provide? As for the IT is just a janitor with over-inflated ego, ever been in an office when the mail server goes down? Sure, not dearly as important as a toilet not flushing but wow do the users ever come knocking on the door to find out why they can't email. You know a lot of business over five people that will simply go back paper filing while you take your time fixing the unimportant computer systems? Please..

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Damn, saw right through that one did ya? LOL :D Seriously I get a kick out of some of the "techs" that come here stating how they know what's best for the company and how stupid C level staff are and how dumb users are, in fact all the people that actually pay their wages are deemed stupid and inept. Just because nerds were outcasts for decades, it doesn't mean that because IT is grudgingly accepted now that all of a sudden IT staff are the gurus of the modern business world. Most don't even seem to realize that they are just a company expense and tha they don't actually bring in the revenue that keeps the doors open and generates their paychecks. (of course not including businesses solely focused on e-commerce).

santeewelding
santeewelding

You just called everybody and their brother sanctimonious duds.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

First of all, i don't have a complaint about Vista, as I said before it works fine for me. I also don't have a complaint about people who prefer or have no need to upgrade from XP. I don't expect nor benefit in any way from people adopting Vista like lemmings. Everyone waited until the 11th hour before jumping into XP, right as Vista was being released. This stuff about Vista being premature is utter rubbish. XP SP3, the FINAL improvement that made it livable[i](SP1 was drivers and compatibiltiy, SP2 was a pethora of security patches as there were just too many to be released individually)[/i]was released 16 months after Vista was released. SP1, which really solidified Vista for upgraders too cheap to buy a new system, was released 2 months [b]before[/b] XP-SP3. So your bogus timeline is...well, just bogus. Vista was matured long before XP was sorted, but people still clung to the old Vista diatribe as if it was gospel, mainly because techs that had no experience or knowledge with it and were scared of change again soo soon after fighting for an upgrade budget. When XP was released, techs took years to get the okay for system wide upgrades for hardware. At first they rightly stayed clear as it was insecure, incompatible and unstable. By teh time it was SOMWHAT reasonable and Vista was on teh horizon, they were forced to go with machines that would run XP minimally, but they had to be cool and jump on the XP bandwagon so they took these underpowered box quotes and got the CFO to sign off on upgrades, instead of waitign a few more months for Vista SP1. That initial XP upgrade was SHITE, absolute horror, it was a security nightmare. When the dust has settled, and Vista was released, they had no choice but ot downplay it's value and say how fantastic their last choice was. The lies spread, the followers followed and Vista got horrific press. Meanwhile, it was more secure, more stable, proven just as fast, offered even better user functionality over XP etc. But after begging for budget for several years, techs couldn't do it again without admitting that they had made a mistake in pushing for XP so near to end of life. So they had to be cool and say Vista is shite, wait for Win7 (perhaps the added few years and HOPEFULLY a stripped down system would allow them to upgrade again). So now their dreams have been answered, they have a new flavour, they can put it off for a few more years while others get going. They can say how clever they were by waiting for Win7. They can then make a solid case and say it's finally time to upgrade from the crap they convinced the CFO to buy so near to end of life before. I see IT guys like I see marketing companies, except they aren't as good at it as most marketing teams. They THINK they are puting one over on the bosses that simply don't know any better, but all they do is follow their peers. I speak to C level owners all the time that just shake their heads at the thought of their IT department. They say its a necessary evil but they don't have anything to do with it anymore as it's just a big con game that costs them money by having computer nerds make business decisions. Fortunately they are ususally costs that are easily buried by a boost from the real revenue generators. I've been asked to step it up myself in the past, just because the IT department wants new toys taht the boss knows they could never pay for them themselves. IT staff by nature are generally less socially adept as others, in which case they need to stick together and form peer groups that they feel accepted in. You can't upgrade when your peers don't. You can't speak of an OS's merits when others parrot it's shortfalls. You must be accepted at all costs, even if it is not in the company's best interests at all. Peer groups are imperative, bosses don't know what they are talking about (how many times do we read that here) and the IT department are always acting in the company's best interests, which is a bold faced lie in many cases. o me, IT is a fake/pretend industry where importance is overblown by the ITT department, it's like the janitor saying he's a master of custodial arts. Without the toilet flushing properly, the company would shut down.

Neon Samurai
Neon Samurai

I do recall that MS biggest competition has been it's previous version and with good reason. Dos 6 needed the 6.2 release for maturity. win98 took a while to cover the major flaws found after retail release. winME quickly got swept under the rug. win2k had to mature a little. WinXP had to mature a little. Vista has had to mature a little also. Win7 may be one of the most solid Microsoft releases yet if it lives up to the experience so far. So Vista has matured but not in time to outlive it's bad press and about to be eclipsed by Win7. I'd think it irresponsible to suggest users and businesses choose now to upgrade from winXP to Vista. By all acounts, win7 is Vista SP3. So, your complaint is that people are not jumping to Vista like lemmings because it's finally matured on the dawn of it's replacement? I hold to my point, in the beginning, there was very valid reasons for not moving from winXP to the new premature version. Now, there is very valid reasons for not moving from winXP to Vista since win7 is about to be released and is basically Vista with the bugs fixed.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

I thought you were older than 9? "Given the market forces which have driven Microsoft to extend the Win XP end of life a few times now, it doesn't seem like the market was demanding a new Windows version." And you don't remember the EXACT SAME THING when XP was released and Win2K was being clung to like the last breath of life? How about When Win2K was released and nobody could find drivers and complained that it was missing features that were simply moved to different places from Win98SE? People swore it was junk and that Win98SE was better?!? When Win98 came out everyone bitched and moaned that they couldn't find drivers, needed new hardware for this bloated junk and reverted users to Win95. You really think you're on to something new here? Vista has been around for a while now, and even with just SP1 it beats out where XP was after SP2. Vista, when brand new, had flaws for some people, mainly those upgrading on older systems and those buying VASTLY underpowered new systems. Anyone else I know, as we see here over and over again, that has bought a new PC tower/notebook and has taken more than a half hour to get used to it, says Vista runs like a top, as do I with a

Editor's Picks