<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on CIOs may have no choice in supporting Windows 8 ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-21T11:56:42-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Oh, I'm using Outlook...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3743915]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[our ISP is using GMAIL servers, but nobody here is ready to dump Outlook. It seems to work fine in this manner. Multi-device syncing was standardized as well. Most of us in this non-profit association, seem pretty happy with it. The managers are cutting back personnel, and don't want to maintain Microsoft Exchange anymore. They want to offload it to Google. I am not privy to the costs on that side of the equation, but it make sense to me.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3743915]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JCitizen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2013 08:08:01 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Are you having any issues...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3743904]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[with the new virtualization on Win7? I understand that they support more than just XP mode now.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3743904]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JCitizen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2013 07:58:57 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Your comments are without merit.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3743639]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Certainly no known OS in invulnerable to viral problems. I do appreciate that there's no registry aka Windows to mess with as that's 90% of the problem. Their proactive way of dealing with it by plugging the holes rather then scanning for the viruses makes more sense. I love windows 7 and use Linux for banking when I need a more secure environment. As long as it is updated (it really needs a better autoupdater), it is secure.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3743639]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[support@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:22:26 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[seebelow]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3743655]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[see below]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3743655]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[support@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 07:20:54 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[&quot;Few&quot;, huh?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3712290]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Here we are...about a week later, and now we can see who knows what, versus who theorizes.Remember my original claim?  I said Windows 8 will be a flop, both in the consumer market, and certainly in the business world.  And now we have some numbers to see just how right or wrong I was:- 74% of organizations have no plans to adopt Windows 8 (source:  TechRepublic survey)- 67% of businesses plan to ignore Windows 8 (source: Forrester Research)- 90% of enterprises have no plans to deploy Windows 8 in 2012 or 2013 (source: Gartner Research)I think that pretty much backs up my &quot;no self-respecting CIO&quot; claim.Those are the most recent three surveys.  I can cite about 10 others which also very clearly show that the vast majority of both CIOs AND consumers have little or no interest in Windows 8.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3712290]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[pickleman]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2012 17:04:30 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[We skipped Vista completely]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3711349]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[But started deploying Windows 7 with no real headaches and a lot of tangible improvements. Servers, we went from W2k to W2k3 to W2k8. XP is dated and difficult to support and more prone to problems than Win 7. I'd prefer to have a complete OS recycle and get rid of Win XP... but it works well enough that the cost justification isn't there. While your advice isn't unsound - I don't think it is a hard and fast rule that 2 years is the time you should wait before adopting. You should enter into any new OS by any vendor with caution - I don't think it matters if it is a *nix, OS X, one of the mobile OS platforms, or a Microsoft platform. Evaluate, test, solicit feedback from the industry, and go in with an informed opinion. Windows 8 is a major departure - so for business I think it requires an additional level of caution over a normal evolutionary upgrade of an OS. But if it caught on quickly and established a solid business case, I wouldn't want to be 12 months behind the industry.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3711349]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dcolbert@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 06:16:31 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[GT GEEK]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3711059]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[YEAH AND A FOR A GEEK IT IS EASY TO TEACH SOMEONE HOW TO USE IT...NO POINT MISSED....YOU ALL KNOW BETTER....]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3711059]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[verd@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2012 11:54:39 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Mostly right, but the legality statement is wrong - as long as you have a]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3710854]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[legal licence for the software, with or without SA, you have a legal right to use every feature provided with it and it must, by law, be fit for the purpose described in the advertising as capable of doing. All the SA really does give most people is the right to ring Microsoft and get a better level of support from their techs. If Microsoft are selling the product with the software features, then they're selling it with the legal right to use those features - in that case the SA is just another way they're ripping you off by threats and menaces (ie extortion). All an audit should do is check if you have a legal licence for the product obtained in a legal process, not if you're using a feature they didn't think you'd need for the licence on it when bought.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3710854]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Deadly Ernest]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:31:18 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Re: Features Not Available for RT Devices]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3710860]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[SA has about 20 different benefits, not all of which apply to every product. In this case, SA gives the customer the right to upgrade to Windows 8 Enterprise on their desktop, which they need in order to do all this stuff with their RT tablet. In general, Microsoft doesn't provide technical support for its own licensing, that is, if you don't have the right licenses, the software itself won't stop you from doing something, even if you don't have the right license. But it's not legal, and if an audit of your firm determines that you have done anything on the list without SA on your product you could face substantial penalties and make-good payments. I'd guess that MS would want at least $300 in make-good for each improperly licensed device, more if you give them a hard time about it.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3710860]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[pdegroot]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2012 11:09:17 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[My view is...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3710357]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[That I'll inevitably run it... but only when I upgrade to hardware that makes sense to leverage it. This is a transitive OS that bridges us from a traditional approach to desktop computing to a new one. I know a lot of people don't think there is any value added or reason for this transition - but there are so many use models where this touch-screen, hybrid tablet/laptop approach to personal computing is superior that I think it is inevitable. The question is if Microsoft Windows can be an OS player in that market, and if IA86 CPUs can be viable there. I think they can. There is no reason why a PC shouldn't be able to do everything it ALWAYS has done *and* give the experience that makes a tablet superior in other situations - as far as actual operations are concerned. I don't think Microsoft will get that right out of the gate - but I bet they'll continue to sink money into it until they do get it right and then it will be a formidable platform. The other remaining question is if they can figure out how to make IA86 and Windows 8 competitive on standby, start-up, run-time, and mechanical heat dissipation. I don't think they have to be *as good* as ARM in this regard, but they've got to be in the ballpark without giving up too much of what makes Intel architecture superior to ARM.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3710357]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dcolbert@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 25 Oct 2012 05:25:27 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I suspect he forgot the sarcasm marker, Palmy -nt]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3710069]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[nt]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3710069]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Deadly Ernest]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:00:47 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Us either]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3710052]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Unlike Vista or 7, I've held off installing it for myself.  I looked forward to those two, although we never deployed V.  I just can't get excited about W8; there just doesn't seem to be much bang for the learning curve buck.  We've got the media and enterprise licenses; there are a couple of brand new HP desktops or laptops I could put it on.  I know I should take a look at the final release, but the betas just left such a bad taste in my mouth and I don't see having to support it before 2014, if then.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3710052]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[CharlieSpencer_Palmetto]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:53:27 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Huh?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3710060]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[My experience is that the exec is likely to use fewer apps than developers, and the exec's apps are likely to require less horsepower.  Most of the execs I support rarely use much beyond e-mail, a web browser, Office, and connections to external resources (MRP, SharePoint, etc.).  They're not compiling, running multiple virtual machines, etc.  Gods forbid we drag draftsmen into the conversation; their needs are often top of the chart.I'm certainly not saying execs aren't important, but their computer uses are among the most basic.  The developer definitely needs the RAM and fast drive more than the exec, although I agree he doesn't need it in a top-end laptop format (if he needs a laptop at all).  The exec could keep the business running just as well with almost any corporate-grade laptop; he just wants the early upgrade to keep up with the Jones.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3710060]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[CharlieSpencer_Palmetto]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:45:27 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I'm not planning on deploying it.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3710032]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[We're rolling out Windows 7 by attrition. As old machines reach end of life, we replace with Windows 7 machines. We're no longer downgrading to XP. That is how things like this go. Eventually we'll be replacing the Windows 7 machines with Windows 8 (or whatever it eventually becomes). Unless at some point a corporate initiative comes down where someone higher up says, &quot;we're going to have hard lifecycle periods with complete system refreshes at that time, corporate wide&quot;. Some companies go all in, some do it a step at a time.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3710032]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dcolbert@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:59:13 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Executives are contradictory.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3709989]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Their &quot;old&quot; systems trickle down to some lucky member of the rank-and-file through redeployment. Studies show that among employees, laptop life-cycle refresh is longer than desktops. Executives frequently exercise &quot;early upgrade&quot; options. Because they're executives. The developer doesn't need the newest, new-fangled machine with 32GB of memory and a 10TB SSD hard drive in a device with a profile the size of a tablet of paper with 20 hours of run-time and 200 weeks of standby without a recharge. He doesn't want it because he needs it. He is just a nerd and probably wants it to game. The executive needs it. He keeps the business running. ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3709989]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dcolbert@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 2012 05:54:45 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I agree,]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3709777]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I wanted pickleman to explain his 'no self-respecting' claims.  While I wouldn't install it en masse on desktops, I can see several industries and applications where it would be useful on 'non-traditional' platforms.Few CIOs will 'ignore' it.  They most certainly will look at it (or more likely have someone look at it).  They may choose to not deploy it, but that isn't ignoring it.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3709777]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[CharlieSpencer_Palmetto]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:17:46 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Apparently we move in different circles.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3709774]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I must be in one of those &quot;Small and middle companies may be less common to embrace this,...&quot;.  We're a shop where the policy is one company computer per employee, unless you're doing development work and need a separate test environment.  (Because of our products, we can't always virtualize that.)I find it these to be contradictory statements:&quot;Laptops have a longer lifecycle than desktop machines. Employees are willing to exist with a laptop longer than with a desktop at all levels.&quot;and &quot;There is simply a prestige factor, as well. Executives *want* the shiniest new gadgets...&quot;If they're buying new gadgets, they're almost certainly replacing useful devices early.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3709774]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[CharlieSpencer_Palmetto]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:06:28 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Far as I know, the quick launch trick still works]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3709763]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Where you make a toolbar and change the properties to look like quick launch.I think I am going to try and make a start menu program and just pin it like a normal program.  Click it, it spawns a menu right above it (wherever your mouse is) showing the contents of &quot;C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu&quot; and &quot;C:\Users\trevord\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu&quot;.  Maybe I can duplicate the Win7 menu by adding search, and commonly used programs, etc.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3709763]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Slayer_]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2012 07:01:12 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Most of what you said]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3709747]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Makes sense to me, but I'm confused by one thing.&quot;Every single feature he mentions, Windows to Go, Direct Access, and side-loading of Windows 8 apps [on RT tablets; x86 Windows devices won't need it] requires Software Assurance on the OS.&quot;I thought SA was used to basically pay extra now for upgrade rights when a new version came out.  Why would this have any effect on using those features?  Also, does that mean that a non-RT Windows 8 device 'without SA on the OS' wouldn't be able to use those features?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3709747]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NonBreaker]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:23:05 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I guess...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3709728]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[We've just been having a better run with BYOD than some.  So far our iPhones have been working with Exchange 2010 almost flawlessly.  It's not a popular opinion, but I think they are less of a headache than using BBs with BES...and they tend to be more stable.  The newest iPads work even better.  Maybe it's just luck.I can't comment on Apps for the Enterprise...we develop all of our applications to be used in a web browser, and any apps people want, we tell them they are on their own.All that being said, I couldn't agree with you more about the Androids...we were having enough trouble with them syncing with Exchange every single day that we banned them.  I've only ever seen one work correctly...and it's mine.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-395552-3709728]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NonBreaker]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 23 Oct 2012 06:01:30 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

