Linked by David Adams on Fri 27th Jun 2008 05:10 UTC, submitted by Ager Ignis
Windows For any given release of Windows, there are companies that choose to skip it. But when the company is Intel, it's a big deal. Intel's IT department "found no compelling case" for upgrading to Windows Vista.
Permalink for comment 320456
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

We upgraded to vista business x64 a few months ago. Apart from a few process things in the development team, there haven't been any real issues.

The whole company is on Dell Optiplex GX620s though (or equivilent), and that isn't normal in most places (3ghz dual core pentium D, 4 gigs dual channel DDR2 ram, 250 gig SATAII drives)

OK. Stupid question.
Doesn't it strike you as odd, that you need a -very- powerful machine just to run a OS? (with almost zero functionality by itself?)

Should I really point out that I'm (still) running CentOS 5.1 on a 10 year old Laptop with a 366Mhz CPU and 256MB of memory? (Plus development tools, etc)
I understand it when my private 8C Xeon chokes when I run far too many Virtual machines or compile something huge on it; I can live with DOOM3/Linux or ETQW/Linux choking down my private workstation at home at HD resolutions.
Heck, I just saw Crysis kill a brand new C2Q/9800X2 machine and I can understand why.

But please tell, why do I need to spend money on new hardware... just to run a bare metal OS?!?!? *

- Gilboa
* Before someone starts, I -am- using Vista [sadly, at work] for testing purposes; It does run nicely (?) on a QX9650 machine w/ nVidia 7600 GPU; I just don't understand why [unlike Linux and XP] it is allowed (!) to crawl on 2-3 year old desktops and for what reason!

Edited 2008-06-27 22:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3