Original post:
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/hiner/?p=670
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Ya microsoft should sell xp bcs xp is having still demand in the market for its good functionality..
I like Windows XP it is more stable and reliable
Based on Vista's public response, which hasn't been that great, they will continue to sell and support XP. To do otherwise would be to turn away profit, and tick off their existing user base.
One thing that MS should be prepared for in the future is slower movement to adapt to new operating systems. People/businesses have finally caught on that it's better to wait for the first service pack release.
There's a lot less expense, time, and stress involved when you're not the guinea pig discovering all of the issues/problems. Leave that to the beta testers, and developers.
One thing that MS should be prepared for in the future is slower movement to adapt to new operating systems. People/businesses have finally caught on that it's better to wait for the first service pack release.
There's a lot less expense, time, and stress involved when you're not the guinea pig discovering all of the issues/problems. Leave that to the beta testers, and developers.
I, too make my living in IT. Microsoft will quit selling XP because that is what they do. I have been running Vista for over 6 months now. I won't go back to XP. Many things that I like much better, and anything I couldn't make work was already old and out of date anyway. No problems running ALL the older software I might use, and only have had to invoke compatibility mode with one program. The big deal is mostly a creation of the media and not the real world, kinda like the elections. This same thing happened when XP came out, when 98 came out, etc. etc. Instead of compaining that HP didn't write drivers for that old POS printer, use it as a reason to get something new! Having said that, I know that it has been problematic for businesses that run specialized software with dependent hardware. That is the developers' fault, not Vista's. THEY need to step up and fix it. Bottom line is we MUST move forward. XP has been around twice as long as expected. Count that as a blessing, and the reason why resistance (which is still futile) is so strong. If you think anything different, it is because you haven't been around long enough.
...you know the rest of the phrase.
I see no justification in upgrading just to have the latest and "greatest" (using that term loosely here). This is especially true for small businesses, as they may not have the IT resources that larger companies have. Why look for an excuse to buy a printer just so it is compatible with an OS that is basically the same as XP with more bells and whistles? (Well, except for the bloat, incompatibilities, annoying UAC, etc.) If you need a new printer, get a new printer.
As for end of support for XP, how often has anyone gotten truly useful support directly from MS? I know that when I encounter issues I can't immediately resolve, Google is my tool of choice. I get more help with problems from sites like TR and the other guys in the trenches like myself than I ever have gotten from MS.
I see no justification in upgrading just to have the latest and "greatest" (using that term loosely here). This is especially true for small businesses, as they may not have the IT resources that larger companies have. Why look for an excuse to buy a printer just so it is compatible with an OS that is basically the same as XP with more bells and whistles? (Well, except for the bloat, incompatibilities, annoying UAC, etc.) If you need a new printer, get a new printer.
As for end of support for XP, how often has anyone gotten truly useful support directly from MS? I know that when I encounter issues I can't immediately resolve, Google is my tool of choice. I get more help with problems from sites like TR and the other guys in the trenches like myself than I ever have gotten from MS.
"As for end of support for XP, how often has anyone gotten truly useful support directly from MS? I know that when I encounter issues I can't immediately resolve, Google is my tool of choice. I get more help with problems from sites like TR and the other guys in the trenches like myself than I ever have gotten from MS."
Volume licensing entities might get some, I don't know. But as a home user, I get diddly from MS in the way of help and support if I'm not willing or able to pay for it. I ain't made of money, so whatever help I need comes via TR, googling an issue, or friends who know more than I do.
Volume licensing entities might get some, I don't know. But as a home user, I get diddly from MS in the way of help and support if I'm not willing or able to pay for it. I ain't made of money, so whatever help I need comes via TR, googling an issue, or friends who know more than I do.
Besides the fact that I shouldn't be forced to buy the new version of software from a software vendor that is worse than the version I have, it is a bloated slow piece of crap. My wife has a laptop that is 6 months old with a Dual Core processor and Vista Business on it, and it runs slower than my single core 3 year laptop. I won't go into all of the other particulars that should make her laptop run circles around mine. It can't because of a useless operating system sucking up all of its resources. And why in the world would I want to "downgrade" to a newer O/S only to find out that I now have no choice but to buy new printers or other peripherals when I don't need new ones. Why would I want to deal with a new O/S that is 33%-70% slower than the one I currently have? Why would I want to be forced into something I do NOT want, when there is no REAL reason why I should have to. There is no reason why MS can't just keep supplying XP until their next O/S comes out to replace its second generation ME! Your comment about the big deal being mostly a creation of the media and not the real world...DO WHAT??? Use the piece of junk software for a day...I didn't need the media to tell me anything...I could see it for myself. Your comment about not being around long enough...Sounds like you haven't been around long enough. Either that or you work for MS or make a crapload of money pushing their products. On another note, do you work with anyone who uses Autodesk AutoCAD? Tell someone they have to upgrade to the 2008 or 2009 version($2,000-$5000) just so they can start running vista and watch the software run slower than it has since the 2003 version came out. You won't be selling to them anymore. Guess I better get off of my soapbox, I could type a book on the reasons why not to "downgrade" to Vista.
I've been working with Windows OS's for quite some time now. As is with all things man made, sometimes we just don't get it quite right, so we improve on the next model. That being said, there has been many successful releases of the Windows OS, but there's been a few problematic versions as well. I feel that Idea behind vista is a good one, but think back to some of the other "not-so-successful" versions of Windows from the past that barely survived to their end-of-life dates like Windows 95 and Windows ME. Vista, in my opinion, is another one of these "not-so-great" versions of Windows, but in a good way. Vista will prove to be a stepping stone to the next "stable-and -successful" release. I think that the issues that current consumers and businesses are having will be ironed out. Vista will simply be the predecessor to a better OS.
You know, it completely astounds me to hear people say that an OS is old and therefore we should abandon it for something new. This is absolute BS. UNIX has been around for quite some time and Linux will too. MS has too many versions of an OS on the market today and if they were smart, they would keep XP and add to that platform instead of trying to re-invent the wheel. If XP cannot be enhanced to add "vista like" features or Windows 7 then they have to re-think what it is the consumer wants and develope something that does not require a complete re-write of an OS every few years. These re-writes cause unecessary grief to business because all of their "home grown" applications or older applications will not work and it is very costly to go through the testing of new application to fulfill their needs.
Those early adopters of Vista I salute you and pity you at the same time. You have put your money on a horse that never made it out of the gate.
I now recommend to everyone that I talk to, "review linux as a viable OS and Open Office as the applicatons suite". Yep there are some challenges but they will be overcome.
Those early adopters of Vista I salute you and pity you at the same time. You have put your money on a horse that never made it out of the gate.
I now recommend to everyone that I talk to, "review linux as a viable OS and Open Office as the applicatons suite". Yep there are some challenges but they will be overcome.
I've been in IT 40 years since the early IBM mainframe days and my opinion, along with most hard cores, is the direct opposite of yours. Your blindness is fully revealed by your "bottom line" conclusion that adopting Vista is a "move forward". I work in an IT based business with about 100 workstations and we have zero Vista machines. We're doing just fine thank you. The days when Microsoft can ram a new operating system down the throats of the computing world just because they think "it's time" or "it's a good idea" are over forever. Praise the Lord.
You are correct, if XP is doing fine without any problem so why do you want to move from it?..Stay with the best..
It wasn't that long ago that XP was rightfully loathed by a great many people. But M$ kept at it; sending out update after patch after service pack... and what do you know? XP in it's current form is a pretty slick OS. It does a great job handling all kinds of media. The Windows picture viewer runs much better than a number of 3rd party apps I had tried. And thanks for SP3!! I had a number of issues (including boot freeze-ups) which were totally cured by installing the final pre-release version, recently. I can easily run my 2.4 gig AMD processor to it's limit running some of the A/V apps I use (even with 2.5 gigs of RAM). I know a more resource-hungry OS would necessitate a new CPU.. which means a new motherboard... which means my power supply may not be big enough... auggh!! C'mon, Redmond!! I waited thru the '90s with no computer because they obviously couldn't do what I wanted them to do. (My old man was a software guy back in the days of boxes of punch cards.. he knew where things were headed back in 1975.. and he was basically right, too.) Now with XP I can do all manner of A/V wrangling (I should point out that I'm a professional musician, not an oil tychoon). And it's really fun, and even productive. It's only reasonable to allow a good system like XP an extended life so we aren't strongarmed into buying all new hardware that we can't afford anyway. (We; meaning us mere mortals living paycheck to paycheck... which is most of us in the now-demolished middle class...)☺
Going From 98 to ME you had to do a lot of Hardware and Software Updates. I build CPUs and when XP came out it was easy to update OS systems from 98 to XP without breaking the bank on new hardware or a full CPU rebuild. All you had to do in 98 format was pop in the XP disk and go. Now like B4 with ME you have to hunt dirver updates and hope like hell they work W/O all the tweeks that most of the world have no ideal about. Not everyone is an IT or builder with the know how to do all that is needed to revamp a old system.
You do have a very fine point. I don't respond to meny postings, yours I do like and understand. Very well and to the point.
You do have a very fine point. I don't respond to meny postings, yours I do like and understand. Very well and to the point.
. . . I won't upgrade to Vista.
I mean, why should I? With XP SP3, I finally have a system that's stable, performs *really* well, quite secure, and I am out-and-out familiar with it. Not to mention the tens of employees in my office who are also already familiar with it.
Should I chuck out a purr-fect working & productivity-supporting OS for something still half-baked? And for what? Eye candy (Aero & Dreamscape) that's immediately go invisible when employees start their work (maximize applications and -- voila! -- No trace of Aero & Dreamscape; they're hidden behind the maximized apps).
All in all, I'll really stick with XP. The only way Microsoft can have me upgrade my XP's with Vista is to hire a hitman to stow me 6 feet under, and install a robot remotely controlled from Redmond.
Uh... I think it's time to invest in a bulletproof vest :P
I mean, why should I? With XP SP3, I finally have a system that's stable, performs *really* well, quite secure, and I am out-and-out familiar with it. Not to mention the tens of employees in my office who are also already familiar with it.
Should I chuck out a purr-fect working & productivity-supporting OS for something still half-baked? And for what? Eye candy (Aero & Dreamscape) that's immediately go invisible when employees start their work (maximize applications and -- voila! -- No trace of Aero & Dreamscape; they're hidden behind the maximized apps).
All in all, I'll really stick with XP. The only way Microsoft can have me upgrade my XP's with Vista is to hire a hitman to stow me 6 feet under, and install a robot remotely controlled from Redmond.
Uh... I think it's time to invest in a bulletproof vest :P
Steve ? Reece Computers Systems is a small IT consulting, support and training firm in Half Moon Bay with about 500 customers, recently named Small Business of the Year by Leland Yee. We are a husband and wife owned California corporation with 16 employees, many of whom are Microsoft Certified, or on a track to become so. Randy Reece is CEO/CTO and I am its President.
Our customers, who are mainly small businesses with anything from 1 workstation in a house, to 350 systems in a larger multi-site organization, consistently require the stability, smaller footprint, known interface, functional hardware drivers, and ability to work with the older applications that are driving their small businesses.
These are folks who do not have the capability to invest in a new $15,000 chiropractic or dental system, buy a new $25,000 medical practice management system, purchase a new retail inventory management system, or buy brand new hardware simply because their desktop operating system has changed. They do not have the technical capability or the time to learn new systems quickly, and need the precious time they have to run their small businesses.
These customers would be more likely to move to Windows Vista if it were more stable, and if they did not have to replace applications and hardware.
TechRepublic published this article. I am writing to urge you to consider the very small business, and the non-profit organization, as you consider end-of-life plans for Microsoft Windows XP. These entities will need to replace desktop hardware in the coming 2 year period. For some organizations, it will not matter if they move to Vista. But for many, if they are forced to move to Microsoft Vista for one or more of their desktop systems, it will cause a ripple effect that could bankrupt them, or worse yet for Microsoft, cause a move from the Microsoft operating system.
Regards, Terri Reece
President, Reece Computer Systems
Our customers, who are mainly small businesses with anything from 1 workstation in a house, to 350 systems in a larger multi-site organization, consistently require the stability, smaller footprint, known interface, functional hardware drivers, and ability to work with the older applications that are driving their small businesses.
These are folks who do not have the capability to invest in a new $15,000 chiropractic or dental system, buy a new $25,000 medical practice management system, purchase a new retail inventory management system, or buy brand new hardware simply because their desktop operating system has changed. They do not have the technical capability or the time to learn new systems quickly, and need the precious time they have to run their small businesses.
These customers would be more likely to move to Windows Vista if it were more stable, and if they did not have to replace applications and hardware.
TechRepublic published this article. I am writing to urge you to consider the very small business, and the non-profit organization, as you consider end-of-life plans for Microsoft Windows XP. These entities will need to replace desktop hardware in the coming 2 year period. For some organizations, it will not matter if they move to Vista. But for many, if they are forced to move to Microsoft Vista for one or more of their desktop systems, it will cause a ripple effect that could bankrupt them, or worse yet for Microsoft, cause a move from the Microsoft operating system.
Regards, Terri Reece
President, Reece Computer Systems
and you guessed it; has been an unqualified disaster.
I hope so ...... But to keep selling XP, Microsoft admits that Vista is a bust. So what do you think? I think they will stop the sale of XP for the everyday person and allow sales to small to middle sized business' only, just to save face with the Vista mistake.
There is nothing wrong with XP in comparison with the problems with Vista. Why get rid of a good thing?
Of course they should keep seling XP as most businesses don't want Vista. It's far too resource hungry so the hardware would need replacing as well as the OS - not a good business equation for slower performance!
Plus MS MUST listen to users needs. Most of their customers are NOT in the US, but they just do not listen to what we want. We do things differently and spell things differently so we just don't want a US dictionary as well as, say, a UK one - we only want the UK one without any of the US bits.
Plus MS MUST listen to users needs. Most of their customers are NOT in the US, but they just do not listen to what we want. We do things differently and spell things differently so we just don't want a US dictionary as well as, say, a UK one - we only want the UK one without any of the US bits.
The sell of XP should continue until Vista has a mjority of the software issues resolved. XP Profesional is used in manufacturing environments currently and not Vista due to its reliability. I do not see this going away until maybe the end of the year
My core products do not support Vista yet...I can't, in good faith, migrate users. I admit that my industry (auto retailing) is FAR behind the tech curve, but still...if your core apps don't support an OS, you can't migrate...
In my opinion, Vista is a transistional OS MEANT to take advantage of the advances in Technology (64x processing, dual core, etc...) and not to improve customer service. That was a secondary priority in the implemintation...
My company is Xp based, we moved up when xp was introduced. I DID take Vista for a test drive on one of those trailers they sent out.(Got the t-shirt and everything) and even the tech rep hisself couldn't contradict the resource greediness of the OS (if I hear one more person say turn off AERO, I'm going to scream), and that the "benefits" don't outweigh the "deficits". (It even froze up while we were working with it in MS's "ideal environment)
Anyway, I digress, the point I was making is, you are absolutely correct in your "good faith" philosophy.
Newer is not always better, and don't worry about the "tech curve"; whether MS sells XP anymore, or if they support it or not, we in the tech field shouldn't care cause WE ARE the support. (that's why we get paid, right?)
My company is Xp based, we moved up when xp was introduced. I DID take Vista for a test drive on one of those trailers they sent out.(Got the t-shirt and everything) and even the tech rep hisself couldn't contradict the resource greediness of the OS (if I hear one more person say turn off AERO, I'm going to scream), and that the "benefits" don't outweigh the "deficits". (It even froze up while we were working with it in MS's "ideal environment)
Anyway, I digress, the point I was making is, you are absolutely correct in your "good faith" philosophy.
Newer is not always better, and don't worry about the "tech curve"; whether MS sells XP anymore, or if they support it or not, we in the tech field shouldn't care cause WE ARE the support. (that's why we get paid, right?)
Newer is not always better, and don't worry about the "tech curve"; whether MS sells XP anymore, or if they support it or not, we in the tech field shouldn't care cause WE ARE the support. (that's why we get paid, right?)
A lot of auto mechanics don't "support" cars for which replacement parts are unavailable. Even if there isn't a single service pack, malware removal tool or registry hack you don't have stored & indexed, it would be nicer if Microsoft either continues to support an OS that the market accepts, or Open Sources that OS and support for it in support of making your job, in the tech field, more doable.
A lot of auto mechanics don't "support" cars for which replacement parts are unavailable. Even if there isn't a single service pack, malware removal tool or registry hack you don't have stored & indexed, it would be nicer if Microsoft either continues to support an OS that the market accepts, or Open Sources that OS and support for it in support of making your job, in the tech field, more doable.
I am not interested in upgrading to Vista. XP is totally fine for what my users have to do. Customers should have the choice to request XP or Vista when buying a new machine, or at the very least, that the Vista licence includes the fact the customer can downgrade to XP if he wishes to.
For people working in IT, OS end of life happen. Don't wait until Microsoft stops supporting XP and then upgrade. Being forced to upgrade is more work, then being able to plan and do it right. Your end users should not drive the replacement but; IT shops should not wait either.
Depends not on Steve Ballmer but totally on how quickly they (Microsoft) can churn out Windows Vista to come to the satisfactory level so that the users get to feel the all-inclusive XP taste and better functionality (and, of course stability) in Vista. Kudos to Microsoft for bringing out Windows in the computing world. Sorry Unix/Linux folks, I know you are dead against MS but MS has played a vital role in educating people and bringing awareness about computers to the people at large.
. . . why not do what Apple did?
IMO, Vista is a lost cause. Microsoft should stop developing it, concentrate fully on Windows Seven, and do drastic things like relegate all legacy-support to a separate module, and write a lean-and-mean kernel for the Next Generation of Windows.
IMO, Vista is a lost cause. Microsoft should stop developing it, concentrate fully on Windows Seven, and do drastic things like relegate all legacy-support to a separate module, and write a lean-and-mean kernel for the Next Generation of Windows.
I think MS should just say that everyone who has bought Vista or a PC with Vista will get a free upgrade to 7. That will push sales because people who need new PCs will just buy even with Vista now and get an upgrade to 7 for free... That would push the adoption of Vista. [As long as 7 will be out in a year's time actually]
If there is sufficient demand, why not continue selling XP? I would, although I would bump the price up. If people really want XP, they will certainly be willing to pay more.
I 15 seats and my clients 60 seats NO way will be going VISTA (sucks tried and gave up even with SP) and as for Office 2007 (Very BAD).
If MS discountinues with XP PRO and Office 2003 we will NO longer even look MS way for products.
An if you read the market (all products) once a customer makes the switch they NEVER go back, I would suggest MS be very careful.
If MS discountinues with XP PRO and Office 2003 we will NO longer even look MS way for products.
An if you read the market (all products) once a customer makes the switch they NEVER go back, I would suggest MS be very careful.
The originator of this thread/discussion stated it best in his posting on 4/25/08: Vista is a debacle! It's just glitzy, and nothing more.
Give me the comprehensive and stable XP forever!
If Microsoft doesn't want to keep losing money due to Vista's flop, it should provide free replacement installations to customers who have Vista, switching them to XP Home, Professional, etc., versions, with the new SP3 release, and DUMP VISTA NOW!!
Give me the comprehensive and stable XP forever!
If Microsoft doesn't want to keep losing money due to Vista's flop, it should provide free replacement installations to customers who have Vista, switching them to XP Home, Professional, etc., versions, with the new SP3 release, and DUMP VISTA NOW!!
But the biggest reason why I don't recommend Vista to customers is the lack of periperal support for older but still good printers, scanners, cameras, and software that work great on XP but won't work on Vista.
Windows 7 is supposed to provide support for older periperal equipment [unlike Vista] which if true will allow joe consumer and businesses to deploy a new O/S without having to buy brand new printers, scanners, cameras and the lot.
Good try by Microsoft and periperal equipment mfgs to try and get consumers and businesses to all buy new equipment but they forgot that not everyone wants the latest and greatest.
Couple that with consoles pretty much killing the PC gaming market which drives the need for PCs latest and greatest, and well business and joe consumer just aren't going to shell out the $$ for a new O/S and have to buy all brand new hardware and software that will run on it.
Windows 7 is supposed to provide support for older periperal equipment [unlike Vista] which if true will allow joe consumer and businesses to deploy a new O/S without having to buy brand new printers, scanners, cameras and the lot.
Good try by Microsoft and periperal equipment mfgs to try and get consumers and businesses to all buy new equipment but they forgot that not everyone wants the latest and greatest.
Couple that with consoles pretty much killing the PC gaming market which drives the need for PCs latest and greatest, and well business and joe consumer just aren't going to shell out the $$ for a new O/S and have to buy all brand new hardware and software that will run on it.
MS Vista is all glitz/media/game oriented - it's a flop! You can do all those things, PLUS have the utilitarian capabilities of XP for people who use their computers for SERIOUS reasons like managing their businesses, their bank accounting, investments, doing desktop publishing, etc.
Considering Vista is a proven flop, and Microsoft is losing money on it as long as it's out there, and XP is still going strong (so much so that MS is releasing SP3. Let's hope it's well done, rather than creating new bugs to weed out of XP), MS had BETTER KEEP SELLING XP!!
MS should provide free conversation to XP SP3 for people who have already bought PC's with Vista pre-installed on them, or bought Vista on their own.
Then, MS should do a complete recall of Vista and throw it in the trash before they lose any more money on it as the debacle of an O.S. it's proven to be.
Considering Vista is a proven flop, and Microsoft is losing money on it as long as it's out there, and XP is still going strong (so much so that MS is releasing SP3. Let's hope it's well done, rather than creating new bugs to weed out of XP), MS had BETTER KEEP SELLING XP!!
MS should provide free conversation to XP SP3 for people who have already bought PC's with Vista pre-installed on them, or bought Vista on their own.
Then, MS should do a complete recall of Vista and throw it in the trash before they lose any more money on it as the debacle of an O.S. it's proven to be.
MS had BETTER KEEP SELLING XP!!
MS should provide free conversion to XP...
Good for you for not calling it a "downgrade." That particular item of Microsoft propaganda has been annoying me for a few months, but not enough for me to pick a term to substitute. So, thank you for that.
... SP3 for people who have already bought PC's with Vista pre-installed on them, or bought Vista on their own.
Then, MS should do a complete recall of Vista and throw it in the trash before they lose any more money on it as the debacle of an O.S. it's proven to be.
I didn't watch the IT news back then like I do now, so please have mercy, or at least don't act surprised if I'm wrong, but didn't Windows Millennium also have a lot of heavily-advertised features which would never be of any use, except to video gamers? And, didn't a number of those get included in XP? Isn't it a little shady to sell a version as business-competent when its real purpose is video game testing?
MS should provide free conversion to XP...
Good for you for not calling it a "downgrade." That particular item of Microsoft propaganda has been annoying me for a few months, but not enough for me to pick a term to substitute. So, thank you for that.
... SP3 for people who have already bought PC's with Vista pre-installed on them, or bought Vista on their own.
Then, MS should do a complete recall of Vista and throw it in the trash before they lose any more money on it as the debacle of an O.S. it's proven to be.
I didn't watch the IT news back then like I do now, so please have mercy, or at least don't act surprised if I'm wrong, but didn't Windows Millennium also have a lot of heavily-advertised features which would never be of any use, except to video gamers? And, didn't a number of those get included in XP? Isn't it a little shady to sell a version as business-competent when its real purpose is video game testing?
Wow, I rarely reply to posts but maybe I've finally had my fill of ppl not staying on the topic. The Question, "Will/Should Microsoft continue to sell WinXP"? Why this has anything to do with Apple or Linix is beyond me. The logical follow-up question concerning support isn't about calling MS to get your turn-of-the-century printer functioning again, it's whether MS will continue to address bug/gliches and security issues found in WinXP by releasing SP's. I agree that Vista appears to be headed down the same path as WinME which was released before it was ready and ended up simply being a precursor to WinXP (with us paying for the R&D) but I digress... To answer the question, MS created this fiasco by allowing WinXP to become entrenched by waiting more than 6 years to improve/replace WinXP. When the IT and IS departments pressured MS to confront the huge holes in WinXP, not to mention the constant bombardment by hackers (Which by the way, neither Apple or Linix would survive a single day if the focus changed)Vista was released to pacify the masses and treated with the same attitude that WinXP was, when it was released in 2001 (We'll fix it as we go via SP's)MS needs to cut it losses with Vista and focus on Win7 while continuing to acknowledge WinXP is here to stay until MS can produce a stable and reliable OS replacement. IMHO
That's just a weak excuse for being weak. M$ is not a heavyweight boxing champ, it is an immoral monopoly that has thrived on promising more than it can deliver (usability "out of the box", HA!), illegal package-dealing (Netscape suit), and following the technology curve, never pushing it: Excel, Word, Windows itself. Since, with all the market share it has acquired by cheating, it still is unable to write secure software, I have concluded that incompetence is pervasive in Microsoft. How do you reach another conclusion, in the face of all the companies that successfully write software with fewer exploits in products with similar functionality to Microsoft's?
Why this has anything to do with Apple or Linix [sic] is beyond me.
They are competitors, whose chances of destroying Microsoft increase as it fails to deliver on its various promises. Even Steve Ballmer could have told you that, although he would have taken several self-contradictory paragraphs of euphemisms to say it.
Why this has anything to do with Apple or Linix [sic] is beyond me.
They are competitors, whose chances of destroying Microsoft increase as it fails to deliver on its various promises. Even Steve Ballmer could have told you that, although he would have taken several self-contradictory paragraphs of euphemisms to say it.
"
When the IT and IS departments pressured MS to confront the huge holes in WinXP, not to mention the constant bombardment by hackers (Which by the way, neither Apple or Linix would survive a single day if the focus changed)
"
If the focus changed, osX, the BSDs or the various distributions based on the Linux kernel would see more attempts. The difference would still be in success rates. Windows has a high amount of attacks *and* a high amount of successfull attacks *with* a slower rate too address those found vulnerabilities. By contrast, the FOSS developer community is not limited by marketing, budgets and product deadlines. Vulnerabilities are seen as "proof of concept" for a bit of coding that needs to be fixed. Patch times for those discovered flaws are often counted in hours versus days, weeks or months.
A bug report will often include the source snippet with the fix; do Windows bug reports regularily include the corrected source code?
I think that BSD would show the hardest resistance to a Windows level of criminal focus. It has the FOSS developers behind it along with the standards and primary goal of high security above all else. Linux based OS would probably be next in the line of resistance. It has the developers behind it but is a more varied market due to the array of very good to some very poor distributions. osX has the posix/BSD base so it has an architectural advantage over Windows but the Apple only parts of it are limited by Apple's budgets and delivery scheduals. Windows has demonstraited over and over that it would be fourth in the architectural line of resistance to malware.
In short, while Windows developers may want to make a 100% rock solid OS, they are effected by business limitations that inherently prevent that goal. FOSS developers, on the other hand, work on whatever project they take interest in out of personal interest and the drive to make better programming code.
It has much more to do with architecture and configuration than it has to do with market size. Obscurity (small market share) has nothing to do with defensive security; it's only of use to the attacker playing hide and evade games.
When the IT and IS departments pressured MS to confront the huge holes in WinXP, not to mention the constant bombardment by hackers (Which by the way, neither Apple or Linix would survive a single day if the focus changed)
"
If the focus changed, osX, the BSDs or the various distributions based on the Linux kernel would see more attempts. The difference would still be in success rates. Windows has a high amount of attacks *and* a high amount of successfull attacks *with* a slower rate too address those found vulnerabilities. By contrast, the FOSS developer community is not limited by marketing, budgets and product deadlines. Vulnerabilities are seen as "proof of concept" for a bit of coding that needs to be fixed. Patch times for those discovered flaws are often counted in hours versus days, weeks or months.
A bug report will often include the source snippet with the fix; do Windows bug reports regularily include the corrected source code?
I think that BSD would show the hardest resistance to a Windows level of criminal focus. It has the FOSS developers behind it along with the standards and primary goal of high security above all else. Linux based OS would probably be next in the line of resistance. It has the developers behind it but is a more varied market due to the array of very good to some very poor distributions. osX has the posix/BSD base so it has an architectural advantage over Windows but the Apple only parts of it are limited by Apple's budgets and delivery scheduals. Windows has demonstraited over and over that it would be fourth in the architectural line of resistance to malware.
In short, while Windows developers may want to make a 100% rock solid OS, they are effected by business limitations that inherently prevent that goal. FOSS developers, on the other hand, work on whatever project they take interest in out of personal interest and the drive to make better programming code.
It has much more to do with architecture and configuration than it has to do with market size. Obscurity (small market share) has nothing to do with defensive security; it's only of use to the attacker playing hide and evade games.
"IT departments are slow adopters of new operating systems because they prefer to standardize."
What a hypocrite! Isn't Microsoft supposed to understand "standardization"? In fact, if MS wasn't so fast to ship its new OS and so slow to share it with 3rd-party developers we might not need so much post-release standardization work by IT departments. Ballmer needs to let Vista permeate the 3rd-party market another year before pulling XP.
Trust me; it takes a hypocrite to know one.
After all, I have my own business servicing Microsoft systems. Wait a minute...never mind...Go Ballmer! Go Vista! ROFL!
What a hypocrite! Isn't Microsoft supposed to understand "standardization"? In fact, if MS wasn't so fast to ship its new OS and so slow to share it with 3rd-party developers we might not need so much post-release standardization work by IT departments. Ballmer needs to let Vista permeate the 3rd-party market another year before pulling XP.
Trust me; it takes a hypocrite to know one.
After all, I have my own business servicing Microsoft systems. Wait a minute...never mind...Go Ballmer! Go Vista! ROFL!
XP Home simply doesn't have the required capabilities that come included in Linux for the UMPC market. There are NO limitations to what you can do with Linux, what features to include, etc. Connect to Active Directory, Disk encryption, SSH server, Remote Desktop, unlimited. Offering XP Home for UMPC is really not going to fly because of that. If XP Professional (and cut down versions are still available), then you can get the same function with Windows as you can with Linux.
For the OEM, Linux would NOT be having so much success on the desktop in Asia and Eastern Europe, South and Central America pre-installed by OEMs if Vista was really any good. They would be pirating it, which I doubt they are, and the OEMs are, well, OEMing it to attract customers.
Vista is simply not something I recommend, it is always Dell with XP for newbie (I dual boot it with Mandriva), but even my playing with Vista for 6+ hours before I dual booted this new machine of mine, Vista had no WoW and a LOT of churn for no good reason. If it hadn't have great help to search for topics then bring the right configure dialogue open, I would have given up after 20 minutes. Everything is just hard to find for no good reason. Expect Windows 7 to bring back simplicity and consolidation. Until then, MS's choices are
1) Give up on UMPC
2) Get reluctant attrition to Vista via new PC sales
3) See more and more enterprises try Linux/Mac
or
1) Sell XP and continue to maintain enterprise
2) Prevent OEMs from exploring more with Linux because XP is entrenched, fully supported and (relatively) just works.
TripleII
For the OEM, Linux would NOT be having so much success on the desktop in Asia and Eastern Europe, South and Central America pre-installed by OEMs if Vista was really any good. They would be pirating it, which I doubt they are, and the OEMs are, well, OEMing it to attract customers.
Vista is simply not something I recommend, it is always Dell with XP for newbie (I dual boot it with Mandriva), but even my playing with Vista for 6+ hours before I dual booted this new machine of mine, Vista had no WoW and a LOT of churn for no good reason. If it hadn't have great help to search for topics then bring the right configure dialogue open, I would have given up after 20 minutes. Everything is just hard to find for no good reason. Expect Windows 7 to bring back simplicity and consolidation. Until then, MS's choices are
1) Give up on UMPC
2) Get reluctant attrition to Vista via new PC sales
3) See more and more enterprises try Linux/Mac
or
1) Sell XP and continue to maintain enterprise
2) Prevent OEMs from exploring more with Linux because XP is entrenched, fully supported and (relatively) just works.
TripleII
I like how Ballmer implies that the reason XP is still out there is because of slow-to-adopt IT shops, and conveniently overlooks the fact that Vista is NOT ready for the workplace. It's still too buggy, doesn't play well with a large amount of software and hardware (including recent MS offerings), the Mobility Center is a joke, and there's at least 40% more clicking necessary to complete any task that doesn't have a direct desktop shortcut.
There's a reason the amount of XP installations INcreased rather than DEcreased.
Don't believe me? Try troubleshooting a flaky network connection sometime. Or removing a program. Or adding a smart phone. Or...well, you get the idea. :o)
"Let's pay more money for an OS that increases our support burden, increases the cost of hardware, is less reliable, and may or may not work with half of our infrastructure!" Hmm...that may make sense for a defense contractor, but definitely not in the real world.
Don't get me wrong: Vista is a good base to start from--it just needs to be streamlined, slimmed down, kaizen-ed and simplified. It never should have reached RTM status.
There's a reason the amount of XP installations INcreased rather than DEcreased.
Don't believe me? Try troubleshooting a flaky network connection sometime. Or removing a program. Or adding a smart phone. Or...well, you get the idea. :o)
"Let's pay more money for an OS that increases our support burden, increases the cost of hardware, is less reliable, and may or may not work with half of our infrastructure!" Hmm...that may make sense for a defense contractor, but definitely not in the real world.
Don't get me wrong: Vista is a good base to start from--it just needs to be streamlined, slimmed down, kaizen-ed and simplified. It never should have reached RTM status.
Heh, you said that: Vista is a good base to start from--it just needs to be streamlined, slimmed down, kaizen-ed and simplified. It never should have reached RTM status.
Had they scrapped NT6 (a.k.a. Vista) and concentrated on building Seven, we'll have Seven already on the shelves mid-2009. And all will be well.
As it is now, I'd rather wait out for Seven.
Had they scrapped NT6 (a.k.a. Vista) and concentrated on building Seven, we'll have Seven already on the shelves mid-2009. And all will be well.
As it is now, I'd rather wait out for Seven.
It seems to me that IT isn't 'slow to adopt'. It seems to me that IT looks at what is new, assesses if it is necessary, makes their recommendations and waits for the money boys to push a wheelbarrow full of money into the department.
If new tech allows IT to do something more cheaply, if it makes things faster, IT reports are filled with phrases such as "critical need" and "quickly decrease costs".
Now, is this what happens when an IT department writes on migrating to Vista? Hell no. Vista will do some things that XP can't do or not easily, BUT, it also comes with alot of limitations. Costs don't quickly decrease, indeed, with new hardware and software purchases precipitated by the 'upgrade', the costs increase by a huge amount. Does vista shrink the IT department, making things much easier for them? Don't make us laugh.
I may be a tiny fish in this IT pond, but even I can see that the cost benefit ratio for Vista points so far over to the "Do Not Want" side that you'd think the gauge was broken.
If new tech allows IT to do something more cheaply, if it makes things faster, IT reports are filled with phrases such as "critical need" and "quickly decrease costs".
Now, is this what happens when an IT department writes on migrating to Vista? Hell no. Vista will do some things that XP can't do or not easily, BUT, it also comes with alot of limitations. Costs don't quickly decrease, indeed, with new hardware and software purchases precipitated by the 'upgrade', the costs increase by a huge amount. Does vista shrink the IT department, making things much easier for them? Don't make us laugh.
I may be a tiny fish in this IT pond, but even I can see that the cost benefit ratio for Vista points so far over to the "Do Not Want" side that you'd think the gauge was broken.
Why? Well perhaps because the machines running Win2K is waaaay past its due date; they have to replace it anyway, so they replace it with something truly cutting edge.
And most likely with Vista pre-installed.
Rather than downgrade it to XP, the IT Dept. said, "Okay, let it stay Vista. We'll see what happened."
But I bet the rest of the fishes, just like you said, has no desire whatsoever to upgrade their already-running-well systems for just the sake of some eye candy (which gets hidden anyway as soon as users maximize an application).
And most likely with Vista pre-installed.
Rather than downgrade it to XP, the IT Dept. said, "Okay, let it stay Vista. We'll see what happened."
But I bet the rest of the fishes, just like you said, has no desire whatsoever to upgrade their already-running-well systems for just the sake of some eye candy (which gets hidden anyway as soon as users maximize an application).
If MS have ANY sense, they will keep shipping XP until Windows 7 arrives and is well established.
But do they?
But do they?
If I was still a Microsoft shareholder (I sold out at the peak) I'd have to be asking Steve Ballmer exactly how deaf he might be. Considering the dismal acceptance of Vista, come the end of June those of us without site licenses will have only 2 options for new PCs; Buy from Dell or switch to Mac or Linux.
I think I'm buying some Dell stock today.
I think I'm buying some Dell stock today.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
