Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st Nov 2005 21:04 UTC
Windows The release of the software giant's new operating system will be one of Microsoft's most important product launches this decade, when it goes live next year. But despite the product's myriad new features and functionality, current market trends could inhibit initial adoption of Vista, PC industry analysts say.
Order by: Score:
Will be slow
by Anonymous on Tue 1st Nov 2005 21:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Adoption of Vista (Longhorn) will be quite slow, because it's hardware/DRM requirements are quite high and businesses are doing just fine on their $200 copy of Windows 2000 for 1000 machines, IT budget and single processor (cheap) hardware.

Glitz isn't part of the business world which likes drab, so Vista adoption will happen, but slowly.

Even on the Mac side there are still a great majority of graphic installations still on OS 9. Only half of 25-30 million Mac users are on Mac OS X.

1: scanners and a lot of printers don't work with Mac OS X/G5 processor

2: workflows and software have been perfected

3: new software requires new hardware

4: intel chip announcement

Reply Score: 1

O RLY?
by Anonymous on Tue 1st Nov 2005 21:46 UTC in reply to "Will be slow"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Which printers don't work with OS X? StyleWriters?

Reply Score: 0

RE: O RLY?
by John Blink on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 01:50 UTC in reply to "O RLY?"
John Blink Member since:
2005-10-11

My Canon LASER SHOT LBP-1120 doesn't work on XP64 or MacOSX. Just 32-bit XP.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Will be slow
by pauls101 on Tue 1st Nov 2005 22:25 UTC in reply to "Will be slow"
pauls101 Member since:
2005-07-07

95 was a big change (from the GUI That Was Less Than A CLI, Win 3.1) and times were good; it sold. Win2k also did well because times were good and what it (largely) replaced, Win98/Me, was so horrifically bad.

XP wasn't as much of a change: compared to 2K it's slow, expensive, no more stable or usable, and most of its new UI features are dubious improvements. It hasn't exactly taken over the world, and it's been shipping on most new computers for years.

Vista looks like more (or less) of the same. At the rate it's going, by the time it ships it will literally be a re-themed XP with a few new builtins. If new machine shipments slow down, Vista may turn into a very large embarrassment. Not only will Apple have their Intel hype going, but they'll have a cheaper OS that's (once again) several years ahead of Windows, after a close call in the 2K days.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Will be slow
by Anonymous on Tue 1st Nov 2005 23:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Will be slow"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"It hasn't exactly taken over the world"

XP is installed on 74% of computers according to thecounter.com, which gets browser and OS info from 60 million computers a month from a wide variety of web sites. If it hasn't "taken over the world" what has pray tell?

http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/September/os.php

Reply Score: 0

v RE[3]: Will be slow
by Anonymous on Tue 1st Nov 2005 23:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Will be slow"
RE[4]: Will be slow
by rain on Tue 1st Nov 2005 23:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Will be slow"
rain Member since:
2005-07-09

What is more interesting is the slow adoption of XP showed in the statistics on thecounter. According to their measurements XP didn't start to take off until 2004, which is possibly when people started to buy new computers (upgrading from the ones they bought 3-6 years earlier).
Considering that the lifetime of their new computers is going to be a lot longer (they are fast enough for most people), the adoption of Vista is going to wait even longer.
Now this is just my speculations. But I don't see people upgrading their computers a lot these days. Even my hardcore gamer friends buy new hardware less often.

Good thing for MS that they have the money to survive a few bad years. Because I think that it will take a long time before Vista has any significant userbase. Perhaps not until around 2010-2012.

So yeah, they really seem to be out of sync. But as I said, they have the money to cover that.

Edited 2005-11-02 00:01

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Will be slow
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 00:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Will be slow"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Thecounter.com's 2003 stats didn't count XP apparently, check out pegasus's instead, which includes google's stats - http://www.pegasus3d.com/osshare-combined.gif - XP growth is steady and rapid since its introduction, reducing your whole argument to rubble. It's impossible to say so early and anybody can say anything since it won't be remembered, but I'm certain vista will be the #1 OS within 2 years just like XP was. There's at least 2 things in Vista that everyone wants, graphics and security, that XP didn't have, yet XP took off.

Reply Score: 0

RE[6]: Will be slow
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 01:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Will be slow"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"graphics and security, that XP didn't have, yet XP took off."

Didn't mean to imply XP had NO security, just that it wasn't one of its selling points, to spair us a lame quip.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Will be slow
by archiesteel on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 02:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Will be slow"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

Man, if you're not a MS shill, stop acting like one! Are you that afraid of saying something bad against Windows that you must post corrections to your posts when you do?

In any case, XP certainly didn't have security when it came out. How long does it take for a Vanilla XP install to get hacked if you connect it to the net? Hint: it less than the time it takes for you to download the necessary security packages from the net...

XP SP2 solved many security issues, but not all. It is still a less secure OS than Linux or Mac OSX by default. Recently, there's been a rootkit being spread through an IM client!

http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,...

That's not to mention that you can apparently install rootkits on a Windows XP PC simply by entering a Sony copy-protected CD...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1880572,00.asp

The question is, with Microsoft's dismal security record, how can you be so confident that the next version will be secure?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Will be slow
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 16:28 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Will be slow"
Anonymous Member since:
---

I'd also point out that "thecounter" bases it's stats on two faulty pieces of data: nonunique hits and agent strings.

Agent strings for non-IE browsers spend an awful lot of time set to WinXP w/IE because many sites won't permit you in if you don't (my Konqueror browser is set to that for USPS and many other government websites that work fine with Konqueror but balk at the Agent string).

Also, they make no attempt to resolve how many unique PCs are counted. Further, they focus predominantly on sites that cater to Windows users or that generate annoying error messages if the Agent string isn't set to something Windows / IE based.

Nearly all hits to MSN search are Windows users with IE, for example, if for no other reason than that's where IE brings you by default if you type something it doesn't grok in the location field.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[4]: Will be slow
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 00:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Will be slow"
RE[5]: Will be slow
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 00:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Will be slow"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"most Win 2000 boxes are vast amounts that are on internal LANs not having a browser what so ever installed, much less connected to the internet."

Where did you get that from, your ass? Personal anecdotes don't count for shit, and I doubt you have 24k anything except maybe stuffed penguins in your parent's basement.

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Will be slow
by morglum666 on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 16:46 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Will be slow"
morglum666 Member since:
2005-07-06

Troll rating: 1/10

Thank you. Come again!

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: Will be slow
by proforma on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 10:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Will be slow"
thecounter seems wrong
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 15:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Will be slow"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Don't get me wrong. I fully believe that msft have about 95% of the desktop. But, W2K only has 11% ? I am very skeptical about that.

W2K is not used much by consumers, but it is still very popular with businesses.

How does thecounter count?

Reply Score: 0

RE: thecounter seems wrong
by chemical_scum on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 17:51 UTC in reply to "thecounter seems wrong"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

How does thecounter count?

It counts hits on their counters. They provide a counter service for your website at a modest fee. I guess people who use the service will be small businesses and home users with money to waste who don't know how to set up a free counter.

There will be an obvious selection bias in the statistics produced as the sample set will not necessarily be representative of the web as a whole.

In October they reported about 80 million hits, my guess this is << 1% of Noth American web traffic, so in that sense it is quite a small sample.

Edited 2005-11-02 17:58

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: thecounter seems wrong
by rcsteiner on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 20:04 UTC in reply to "RE: thecounter seems wrong"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

In other words, its biased towards semi-technical home users.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Will be slow
by sappyvcv on Tue 1st Nov 2005 23:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Will be slow"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

"At the rate it's going, by the time it ships it will literally be a re-themed XP with a few new builtins."

That's the most ignorant statement I have read all week. The amount of changes in Vista has been posted many times and is not hard to find. Go familiarize yourself with it and then come back and try to say that again with a straight face.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Will be slow
by dylansmrjones on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 03:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Will be slow"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

We'll see what Vista ends up being in reality, but that statement did manage to shake me up a bit.

Of course it's possible that Vista will end up as a rethemed XP with extra builtins... I just wonder how large extra builtins have to be before they count for more than a retheming of XP...

Anyway, Vista does not contain anything of value for me, so I'll stick with Win2003 Server and LinuxFromScratch.

I'll probably switch to a newer Win-OS (or Win-compatible OS) somewhere around 2008/09.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Will be slow
by sappyvcv on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 03:56 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Will be slow"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

While it's possible they end up dropping stuff, at this point it's very unlikely, as most of the stuff is far enough along.

But you and I both know they are rewriting some core parts (driver models, sound architecture, network architecture, graphics engine, etc) in addition to adding in new stuff. I don't know if people get off on spreading misinformation, or they just believe what they read without looking into it for themselves.

Welcome to the internet, the Mininformation Super Highway.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Will be slow
by Celerate on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 04:10 UTC in reply to "Will be slow"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

Ok, so the statistics are wrong and that comment about businesses liking things because they were drab wasn't correct. But why was this comment moderated down?

When something is inaccurate, post a correction. Only when someone is being abusive or is trolling should comments be moderated down.

Maybe I missed something but I just don't see how this comment deserves a -3 rating, would someone care to enlighten me?

Reply Score: 1

fastest adoption
by PipoDeClown on Tue 1st Nov 2005 21:56 UTC
PipoDeClown
Member since:
2005-07-19

"We predict adoption of Windows Vista will be the largest and fastest in the history of any operating system we've shipped," said Mike Burk, product manager with the Windows client division.

On what assumption does he base that on? He probably means "most aggressive"?
XP will be replaced by Vista, it will be available and pushed towards the customers.

Anyway i would like to see a more efficient operating system instead of this bloat called Vista.

200MB of free disk space
that must be a spelling error

Reply Score: 1

RE: fastest adoption
by Anonymous on Tue 1st Nov 2005 22:43 UTC in reply to "fastest adoption"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Anyway i would like to see a more efficient operating system instead of this bloat called Vista.

try win xp x64

Reply Score: 0

RE: fastest adoption
by Sean Parsons on Tue 1st Nov 2005 22:48 UTC in reply to "fastest adoption"
Sean Parsons Member since:
2005-09-11

I agree that adoption will be slow for Vista. PC sales growth is declining, and people have gotten used to getting reasonable performance on sub $500 (US) PCs. The Aeor GUI is one of the few killer features that has been left in Vista (since WinFS is gone, and I hardly think DRM is good), and to make use of this technology MS is calling for a video card with more than 256MB RAM, 2GB of DDR3 memory and a S-ATA 2 hard drive according to this article:

http://www.apcstart.com/teched/pivot/entry.php?id=6

MS tries to cover up the outrageous cost of this kind of hardware with marketng spiel about declining hardware prices. If trends stay the same and MS can stick to their current release date, it will probably cost at least $1,000 (US) to get a Dell that meets the necessary requirements.

Either businesses and home users will run Windows 2000 and XP longer, or they'll start looking at more affordable alternatives such as GNU/Linux and Mac (yes, this will make the Mac look more affordable).

I'ld also like to comment on MS's belief that Office 12 will be a huge money maker. If you look at this screenshot:

http://www.microsoft.com/office/preview/Figure1.htm

Corporations are going to be wary of this new interface as it will require additional training for much of their staff. At this point StarOffice/OOo 2.0 has a more similar interface to what most businesses' staff will already be accustomed to. Plus I am not aware of any must have features in the new MS Office that is going to entice users to upgrade. Even on the idea of improving the UI for users MS Office 12 is a bad idea. The central focus on a document is the document itself whereas MS has taken away from the document's screen space to add ever more bloated toolbars (btw, the tabs metaphor is not the best idea for every app).

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: fastest adoption
by Tom K on Tue 1st Nov 2005 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE: fastest adoption"
RE[3]: fastest adoption
by Sean Parsons on Tue 1st Nov 2005 23:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: fastest adoption"
Sean Parsons Member since:
2005-09-11

They talked about how Vista will make extensive use of SATA2 technologies -- you took that as "It will need a 200 GB SATA2 drive". When is the last time you've seen an OS calling out for a specific drive interface requirement? Get a clue.

Yes, Vista does not need a SATA2 drive, but it is what they (Microsoft) are recommending (so you can take advantage of the Native command queuing). But, I will acquiesce to your statement being correct

And 256 MB video cards? LOL Minimum spec for Aero will be any fully-compliant 64 MB DirectX 9 video card. That's not to say you won't be able to run it at all on lower specs -- just without the glitz.

Considering the number of technologies that have been cut from Vista, glitz seems like one of the few things it has to offer. Considering that most people will not be able to just upgrade to Vista, but will need to purchase a new PC, 64 bit machines have an obvious enticement as that is the market I suspect MS Windows will push. On 32 bit machines MS claims the minimum requirements to include the glitz is a 64 MB Graphics card and 512 of DDR RAM, and on 64 bit machines they want you to atleast double the capacity of each. Couple that with the fact that in the past Microsoft's minimum requirements have always been insufficient (look at XP). You really need to double their requirements for a usable environment. But maybe MS is giving us useable numbers this time (I'm not holding my breath).

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: fastest adoption
by Tom K on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 01:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: fastest adoption"
v RE[5]: fastest adoption
by Tom K on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 01:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: fastest adoption"
RE[4]: fastest adoption
by sappyvcv on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 04:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: fastest adoption"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

You actually believe that bullshit about doubling your specs for 64-bit? Come on, you can't be serious.

You certainly do NOT need to double everything just because you're doing 64-bit instead. That's flat out bullshit.

Reply Score: 1

v RE[5]: fastest adoption
by Tom K on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 14:54 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: fastest adoption"
RE[3]: fastest adoption
by ma_d on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 01:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: fastest adoption"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Actually... You shouldn't be able to run it with less than the needed RAM. There simply is a needed amount of RAM to store the frame buffer for every window you have open in VRAM.
A 128MB card would be a minimum in my mind, unless you aren't big on this whole multi-tasking thing...

Otherwise it's going to have to do widget rednering cpu side and waste system RAM and AGP time transferring the buffers for a final composite.

The glitz is only dependant on the GPU, and I don't think there's a GPU on the market that couldn't handle the nastiest glitz you throw at it (with the restriction of what would cause physical pain trying to understand).

Reply Score: 0

v RE[4]: fastest adoption
by Tom K on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 01:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: fastest adoption"
RE[5]: fastest adoption
by raver31 on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 08:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: fastest adoption"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

A post from "Linux is Poo" that made some sense and was not denegrating anyone ?
surely this cannot be true ?
did someone steal his username ?

anyway - here is a +1 for you

Reply Score: 1

v RE[6]: fastest adoption
by Tom K on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 14:52 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: fastest adoption"
RE[6]: fastest adoption
by archiesteel on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 16:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: fastest adoption"
archiesteel Member since:
2005-07-02

I know, I was surprised as well...but then he replied to your post with more insults towards those he disagree with. I guess you can't change someone's true nature.

To Lippy: claiming that only 50% of your posts are inflammatory is being too modest. I've been reading your posts for a while and I'd say the figure is closer to 90%, perhaps even as high as 95%. Please grow up.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: fastest adoption
by rain on Tue 1st Nov 2005 23:18 UTC in reply to "RE: fastest adoption"
rain Member since:
2005-07-09

Corporations are going to be wary of this new interface as it will require additional training for much of their staff. At this point StarOffice/OOo 2.0 has a more similar interface to what most businesses' staff will already be accustomed to.

I personally think it's one of MS best moves recently. It's a bold move but a good one. The interface of Office has been pretty much the same from the start, they have just been adding features and features, leaving us with a crowded GUI that is confusing and ineffective to work with.
While I haven't used Office 12 I can't say if the new GUI is actually more efficient, but I applaud the effort to clean up the big mess it is today.
Businesses may very well see it as a long term investment to upgrade if the new GUI makes people more productive.

The OOo GUI is IMO just as messy. If MS are successful I sure hope that OOo choose to copy them. Otherwise, I hope they take a look at products such as Gobe Productive and KOffice which are both tons better in the usability department.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: fastest adoption
by ma_d on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 01:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: fastest adoption"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

It looked to me like Office 12 was going to a more Frontpage-esque style. Where you seperate what you type from how you format it (sort of), and you give power users more fine tuned formatting control.

I like the idea. But, frankly, I've never seen Word processors as a big area for innovation anyway. It's all about making some poor secretary's job easier ... yet more annoying.

Give the poor person something simple, I mean geez a typewriter did the job a hundred years ago. We haven't changed *that* much in how our pages have to look before we can read them ;) .

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: fastest adoption
by Celerate on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 04:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: fastest adoption"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

"While I haven't used Office 12 I can't say if the new GUI is actually more efficient, but I applaud the effort to clean up the big mess it is today. "

Personally I don't find the GUI of MS office to be any worse today than that screenshot, Office 12 sure looks interesting but my initial impression from the screenshots is that it's going to be frustrating to use until people get used to where things are in this new layout.

I don't mind the new look so much, but I hope if OO.o follows in that direction it's easy to switch it back to the way the UI looks now. IIRC Corel's Wordperfect Office can emulate the look of different office suites, including old dos ones, hopefully they will keep that up as it's a brilliant feature in my opinion.

I know some people think Wordperfect office is dead, but if they get their Linux version working and it's as good as the Windows version then I'd be more than happy to buy a copy. WP Office was the first office suite I had, it's my favorite, and the 2000 version still has some features that I haven't been able to turn up in MS Office 2003 after hours of looking.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: fastest adoption
by sappyvcv on Tue 1st Nov 2005 23:35 UTC in reply to "RE: fastest adoption"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

The article also says this:

"If you move from 32 to 64 bit, you basically need to at least double your memory. 2 gigs in 64 bit is the equivalent of a gig of RAM on a 32bit machine. That's because you're dealing with chunks that are twice the size� if you try to make do with what you've got you'll see less performance. But RAM is now so cheap, it's hardly an issue."

So, why exactly should we believe what it says? It's simply bad information.

Reply Score: 1

RE: fastest adoption
by Anonymous on Thu 3rd Nov 2005 00:40 UTC in reply to "fastest adoption"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Anyway i would like to see a more efficient operating system instead of this bloat called Vista.

win xp x64 has that reputation

Reply Score: 0

Uh huh...
by Anonymous on Tue 1st Nov 2005 22:22 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

I love the part where they predict a surge in PC buying based on Vista needing better hardware- This assumes that people will want Vista badly to get a new computer to run it on. The rest of that first part of the article seems to say that there's nothing cool enough in Vista to do that...

I get the impression that anyone who thinks hoardes will flock to Vista, are making way too many assumptions.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Uh huh...
by joelito_pr on Tue 1st Nov 2005 22:26 UTC in reply to "Uh huh..."
joelito_pr Member since:
2005-07-07

When vista arrives I will keep my linux and XP boxes...

And then join the horde that will flock to Mac(intel)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Uh huh...
by proforma on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 10:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Uh huh..."
proforma Member since:
2005-08-27

>When vista arrives I will keep my linux and XP
>boxes...

>And then join the horde that will flock to Mac(intel)

Can't wait to have to buy all new software again!

Instead of buying macs they are out buying IPODS. Macs are the new BETA machines. (They arn't free so screw em!)

Edited 2005-11-02 10:16

Reply Score: 1

RE: Uh huh...
by ma_d on Tue 1st Nov 2005 22:59 UTC in reply to "Uh huh..."
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Didn't you hear, people use their computers for the OS not the apps ;) .

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Uh huh...
by RGCook on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 05:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Uh huh..."
RGCook Member since:
2005-07-12

Even though you jest, I think its true for a lot of folks. The desire for choice is so strong that many will accept limitations of applications just for the sake of the OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Uh huh...
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 07:31 UTC in reply to "Uh huh..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

Look at how many people got new computers to run Half-Life2 or Doom3.

Reply Score: 0

v DOWNLOAD Windows Vista
by Anonymous on Tue 1st Nov 2005 22:51 UTC
Hardware
by ma_d on Tue 1st Nov 2005 23:04 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm not sure what this tripe about Longhorn needing insane hardware is all about. Their predictions are that you'll need/really really want:
1.) A Gfx card with 64+ MB of VRAM. These are about $30, and there's little demand for them now. Imagine how many there will be when everyone wants a low end gfx solution?
2.) A dual core processor: These are expensive today. But I have news for you: Intel/AMD/IBM, they all hit this wall on moving things closer and clocking things up. That doesn't mean processors won't get faster. It means they've been continually getting faster at a slower pace. And now, dual core processors look like they'll be common place soon enough.

Really, it doesn't need that much. And while I may disagree with everything Microsoft wants to do with your second core, I think it's good to ask people to buy quality (read: not junk) hardware. Yes, people with old computers are SOL. But hey, there's a host of operating systems which will still support 2d bitmap graphics for a long time: And supposedly Longhorn is going to support it too!

Quit complaining. The graphics technology they're writing makes so much sense that everyone else is either doing it or shipping it now. Maybe not exactly the same, but the same ideas.

Reply Score: 1

blah blah blah
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 00:53 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Windows XP was not exactly a *stellar* seller when it first shipped and now its pretty much the "MS standard" with a large marketshare.

I'm sure vista will follow suit in much the same way considering that the only people I know who will not end up with a vista box at some point are a few of the 'out of touch with reality' kind that frequent forums like this. *shrugs*

Reply Score: 0

v after Vista, what?
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 01:14 UTC
Stupid
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 01:47 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

This is just stupid vista is going to do well because every Dell, HP, Compaq, Gateway and IBM computer you buy will mostlikely have Vista on it, not because its a good product.

Also why is MS advertising XP? Why would anyone buy an XP box when Vista is coming out next year? and If they havent upgraded from 95/98/ME/2000 shouldnt that tell you somthing?

Reply Score: 0

RE: Stupid
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 03:03 UTC in reply to "Stupid"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Why should businesses upgrade?

My company has a mix of PII with 32mb of ram running win95/98. I can only barely get firefox to load on one of them. Of course for your Point of Sale systems it is over kill and we don't even need that much. We should we spend 20,000 on new hardware and software when your existing stuff has run fine for 8 years. hell the Main file server is a Pentium 150 with 48 mb of ram, with 5 clients connecting to it for all their data. simultaneously, and any one client can print to any of three different printers at any one time.

now tell me why I need to go buy Vista or XP, and machines to run them? My network can use a 286 as a client. Heck I could get ambitious and port the setup over to Sharp Zarous handhelds connect wirelessly with zero loss of functionality. They would be more than fast enough. hmmmmmm

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Stupid
by rcsteiner on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 17:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Stupid"
rcsteiner Member since:
2005-07-12

Most businesses will eventually upgrade because their support contracts will eventually require them to.

Even third parties only support older versions of Windows for a finite period of time.

Reply Score: 1

Anyone taking bets?
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 04:49 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Anyone taking bets on how long it takes before the first Vista virus is released into the wild. As soon as that happens it will destroy one of the prime MS reasons to upgrade and you'll be better off continuing to patch XP...

p.s. I'm giving it 3 weeks...

Reply Score: 0

out of sync
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 07:00 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Yes Vista should have been released/ready 1.5-2.0 years after the introduction of XP.To be frankly XP should have been Vista,and i doubt it would have been enough to stop OSX.

Reply Score: 0

proforma Member since:
2005-08-27

>Computers are Designed for Ubuntu or Debian.

Amen! Freaking free dude! strait up!

So freaking free, it's like a flower child with every download!

Edited 2005-11-02 10:18

Reply Score: 0

The simple reason...
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 10:30 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

A lot of XP growth is down to people like me, buying ex-corporate Dell P3 500mhz machines. Given a RAM upgrade to 256/320mb they run XP, AVG, Firefox and Zonealarm just fine and make good cheapo surfing machines for friends, costing less than a third the price of the cheapest new PC

Vista won't run on one any time soon..

Reply Score: 0

RE: The simple reason...
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 11:21 UTC in reply to "The simple reason..."
Anonymous Member since:
---

"A lot of XP growth is down to people like me, buying ex-corporate Dell P3 500mhz machines. Given a RAM upgrade to 256/320mb they run XP"

Sound dead cheap, just as a matter of interest how much did you pay for the copy of Stand alone XP copy? I've only seen it for half the price a low end cheapo PC

Reply Score: 0

Slow growth ahead
by dukeinlondon on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 11:11 UTC
dukeinlondon
Member since:
2005-07-06

The big difference with previous releases is that there used to be big expectations of MS fixing the mess that 3.11 and then 98 where.

For most corporations, Windows has stopped being a real problem with NT4 and 2000 and for most individuals, with XP.

In my company, we run a huge windows 2000 park and we build packages that are remotely hosted for clients. I can't see that changing any time soon.

Finally most corporates run on very cheap hardware. Requirements are low heat, low noise, low power consumption. And most machines run on integrated graphics. A 3d accelerated card on a corporate box ? unheard of.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Slow growth ahead
by miro on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 12:44 UTC in reply to "Slow growth ahead"
miro Member since:
2005-07-13

Second that, I have a celeron 1600 with 1gig of ram developer machine at work. The buildin gfx is a 16MB nvidia vanta. I'm still running win2000 (which is prefered by most of my coworkers as more stable than xp). So if we concentrate on corporate desktops whats left of vista, ...per application volume control:) ?

Reply Score: 1

RE: The simple reason...
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 12:11 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Dell P3: 25.00
RAM Upgrade: 8.00
XPHome OEM: 60.00 <- fully legal !

total cost 93.00 UK - about $160 US. Cheapest PCs in the UK cost over 200, usually over 270

Reply Score: 0

My next computer purchase
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 12:54 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

My next computer purchase will be a Mac, not a Windows based PC. No matter how much glitz it has, or how much Microsoft market it. I'm tired of the insecure, unreliable that has been Windows.

Reply Score: 0

v "Is Windows Vista Out of Sync?"
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 15:45 UTC
v Registry
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 16:56 UTC
v I can't see a point in all this
by Anonymous on Wed 2nd Nov 2005 19:38 UTC