What is Digg?239 Comments
- TotalDouche, on 06/12/2008, -2/+134Somebody help me out with the meaning of the headline.
"What Caused the Vista Fiasco"???
"What's the Cost of the Vista Fiasco"??? - MacSuxWindozSux, on 06/12/2008, -9/+99BALMER: "The Surge is working!"
GATES: "Stay the course!" - orientis, on 06/12/2008, -6/+79Why would any business upgrade to Vista? Many small to medium (and even some large) businesses have only just made the switch to XP. What can Vista do that XP can't, that is good for my business? What possible features could there be that make it worthwhile retraining my staff across the entire business, purchasing business copies of Vista etc etc etc. It's just not worth it.
- ferrariman60, on 06/12/2008, -2/+56Is it just me, or is this a strangely worded title for an article?
- d4nie1, on 06/12/2008, -8/+39Vista has very few features that people want, and a whole lot of compatability/performance issues. As a business owner, why would you go through the headache and expense of upgrading for little to no benefit? Ultimately businesses want efficient, easy to use software that aids productivity instead of hindering it.
- inactive, on 06/12/2008, -17/+47JOBS: "Praise Allah!"
- perkonis, on 06/11/2008, -1/+26Here's a link to the white paper mentioned at the end of the article...
http://download.microsoft.com/download/8/C/D/8CD43 ...
I love the end where they explain that moving to Vista will make it easier to move to 7. - inactive, on 06/12/2008, -1/+24Hell we are still using 2k, and just now planning for the move to XP.
- djadamjay, on 06/12/2008, -1/+23I think its "What Cost? The Vista Fiasco."
As the article is about earnings lost, thanks to Vista
Whatever it is, it ain't what the headline says. - kingmanic, on 06/12/2008, -0/+19Torvald: "Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek."
- synik, on 06/12/2008, -0/+19The version of solitaire in Vista is much more attractive. If that's not a compelling enough reason to upgrade, then I don't know what is.
- Matteos, on 06/12/2008, -0/+17WOZNIAK: "Yellow Lasers!"
- sarchosis, on 06/12/2008, -4/+20Well Vista 64 is much more stable and supported than XP 64, so if you want more than 4GB of RAM on a workstation you either need 64 bit Vista, OS X or Linux, etc.
- DigitAl56K, on 06/12/2008, -13/+28Queue the anecdotal "Vista works fine for me" posts that totally miss the point about mass market opinion..
- hasslinthehoff, on 06/12/2008, -3/+17They picked a bad time to expect companies to shell out millions of dollars for a product that has no discernible advantage other than filling MS's coffers, especially when they have finally gotten XP patched and glued together enough so it runs half-decently. And no amount of candy-colored buttons is going to change the fact that Windows is a bloated sack of crap and needs to be chucked or rewritten.
- totorototoro, on 06/12/2008, -3/+17just 18 months til Windows 7?
Yeah, I'll wait. - Rotzooi, on 06/12/2008, -9/+22A good product doesn't need marketing to hard sell it to businesses.
Windows NT and 2000 were adopted rapidly and widely for a reason. They are good. - DarkPrincess74, on 06/12/2008, -0/+13To be clear I was only wetting my pants over 3G not the mobile syncing.
- Rotzooi, on 06/12/2008, -3/+16..but..but... the advertisements say otherwise!
- TheWriteGuy, on 06/12/2008, -16/+28Microsoft apologists have been out in full force rewriting the history of the acceptance of XP. What I remember is that many home PC users were glad to be rid of Win98SE. XP brought the NT family line to the masses. XP was a vast improvement over 98SE.
Face it: Vista is to XP what ME was to 98SE. What is needed is a new version of Windows ("Windows 7"?) that will be to XP what XP itself was to 98SE. - honthraj, on 06/12/2008, -4/+16I don't know about the rest of the country, but I can say that within a year of the release of XP all major corporations in New York City had planned and put into effect massive migrations plans to convert their networks and desktop environments to support XP. A year has now passed since the release of Vista and you could count on your hand the corporations who merely have PLANS to go to Vista. I know of no major migration happening anywhere in the city...so ferrariman60 I can't agree with your point. Most delays in large corporations are due to planning and upgrading equipment before the migration can be effectively performed.
With Vista - major corporations started with plans and balked once they realized how much it would cost and how little they would get in return for it. - gordigor, on 06/12/2008, -8/+20XP was slow to be accepted ... there's no rewriting history at all. I didn't want it on my computer because there was nothing compelling to upgrade my hardware for. What a new tonka toy interface and most of my 95 games wouldn't work on it.
I can guarantee the masses didn't know, and still don't know what the NT kernel is. - wrxpert, on 06/12/2008, -3/+14Greed.
- Andrewe1, on 06/12/2008, -4/+15idiot...manufacturers are doing this by stopping driver support for xp...
I got a new laptop and I cant install xp because there are no drivers for it...and they tell me Im gonna void my warranty if I try to do it. - WNW3, on 06/12/2008, -2/+13A big part of why XP was slow to be accepted was because ME was such a giant turd. People who spent $200 on ME for hourly BSODs were hesitant to buy another Microsoft OS.
Here's the thing ME had neat features that made the OS much more intuitive than 98...but it crashed all the damn time. Everyone wanted to upgrade because when it DID work it was much easier to use. So when XP came out and it did all the neat ***** ME did PLUS it was stable people eventually went to it and MS made bank because you bought 2 OSes.
Now they are trying to pull the same ***** with Vista and 7. Thing is, Vista doesn't have anything that makes it a big step over XP. I know if for some reason XP becomes obsolete I'm going with Ubuntu as are all my family/friends who look to me for tech support. - nullx42, on 06/12/2008, -0/+11BSOD
- gordigor, on 06/12/2008, -6/+17I think they were adopted because windows 95/98 sucked.
- d4nie1, on 06/12/2008, -5/+16No, a better product is key. Don't blame the messenger.
- colin8651, on 06/12/2008, -1/+11The closer it is, the closer it is going to be to Vista. 7 Is not going to be a redesign. I bet they are going to just remove all the things that are not needed in Vista and call it 7. I believe it is only going to be for business and nerds who don't want or need bloat.
M$ keeps putting off an entire redesign and it is going to cost them in the long run. - seanmx, on 06/12/2008, -3/+12I. LOVE. THIS. COMPANY!!!!!!!!! YEAHH!!!!
- elscorcho717, on 06/12/2008, -9/+18*caused
- paidhima, on 06/12/2008, -1/+10Not true. I can't speak for all companies, but every single one I've worked with where computers are used for more than POS terminals maintains a service cycle for their machines. They have a time line, and plan/budget for the replacement of computers.
In my experience with IT planning in regards to Vista deployment, the issue has not been hardware requirements but logistical considerations. Hardware is easy to overcome: when the time comes to replace a machine, the one you get will most likely have no problem running Vista. So the hardware takes care of itself, essentially. Logistically, it's a nightmare. Just thinking about deployment of Vista in a business requires you to consider:
A) User training: Vista is a much newer experience from XP. People have been using the operating system for years, and they know how it works. Show them something new could lead to frustration when the user doesn't know where something is. Training is difficult, particularly when dealing with users that are not computer savvy. These are the people that think of a computer as a tool, and nothing more. They turn it on; they turn it off. If something doesn't do what they want how they remember it being done, they throw their hands up and complain. That puts more pressure on the IT department to coddle the users. It puts more pressure on the user, because they can't work as efficiently as before. It puts more pressure on management, because you expect results from users.
B) Software compatibility: Many business applications flat out don't work in Vista. This is unacceptable for businesses. And those software applications that have been updated to work can be incredibly expensive. Imagine having to move the entire company's underlying financial and inventory software from an existing and stable version to something brand new that works (maybe) with Vista. Licensing costs alone are prohibitive, particularly when you factor in essentially zero net gain in functionality.
C) Administration and support: XP is a mature and stable OS (most of the time). When things do go wrong with it, 90% of the time your local IT department can troubleshoot, diagnose and resolve the issue fairly quickly. Vista has not yet reached the point where this same knowledge has saturated the IT community. While some issues may be similar on the surface, they can vary widely in their cause and solution. I'm confident that I can resolve any issue in XP within a reasonable amount of time - even if it means blowing away a machine and rebuilding it (and even the assessment that a rebuild is necessary can be reached quickly). Available community support for XP is also incredibly robust. If there's an issue in XP, and I can't figure it out immediately, I'm pretty sure some well-formed Google searches will provide ideas. Vista is not there yet. - oMeSSiaHo, on 06/12/2008, -4/+12No ***** companies are not going to use Vista. Just like they are not going to use Mac or Linux. They are going to use what they know works and what everyone can fix and do stuff on. Seriously by now I thought this would be common sense...
- kingmanic, on 06/12/2008, -3/+11PGP, TrueCrypt, and multitude of other utilities provide the same functionality at little to no cost. Those are failures of IT policies rather then failures with XP.
- jer2eydevil88, on 06/12/2008, -5/+13Not everyone has $5,000 to spend on a computer.
That said I can build a pretty decent gaming rig / Vista desktop for around $800. - doctechnical, on 06/12/2008, -0/+7KIDALL: Why didn't you sign the NDA? WHY WHY WHY?!??!!
- doctechnical, on 06/12/2008, -0/+7I worked for a major insurance company, and the reason we didn't jump at Win2k or WinXP is because they had no particular benefit (to us) over NT4x. NT was stable, (relatively) secure and you could lock down the desktop like a little bitch.
"No Suzy Creamcheese, you're NOT allowed to install Elf Bowling".
Everyone used XP at home, but it was NT back at the salt mine.
Christ, I still have nightmares about supporting Win9x. Get thee behind me! - PatrickFisher, on 06/12/2008, -3/+10The 21st century started in 2001.
- garreh, on 06/12/2008, -7/+14asta la vista, baby!
- SupaDawg, on 06/12/2008, -7/+14I'm pretty happy with Vista, as are the majority of people who i've pushed it on.
If you're building a media-center PC Vista is miles ahead of XP. However, in the office it's essentially a worthless upgrade.
That said, I have legitimate installs of both XP and Vista on this notebook. I'm still dumbfounded at how much faster XP boots. - Focher, on 06/12/2008, -0/+6It's nice to see a comment on Digg about IT from someone who seems to understand the difference between a hobbyist at home versus how corporations manage their IT environment.
Regarding your point about Administration and Support, I think it is a lot less about XP's maturity and more about the value proposition of Vista. Most of XP's security shortcomings have already been covered with third party tools, so whatever alleged security benefits Vista provides are negated in the corporate scenario.
The fundamental problem MS has with Vista is that there is no real value proposition. Vista is not an option on older hardware and XP performance is better on newer hardware. Management tools are unvailable or immature for Vista at this point. Security is a wash because it has been addressed just as well already on XP.
What MS failed to understand about offering Vista as a product is that they are essentially competing with themselves. The Windows 3.1 -> 95/98 -> 2000 -> XP upgrade path each offered some compelling reasons at each upgrade. Vista doesn't offer it. The "it runs just fine" is a rather pathetic state to be in with your "cutting edge" product. - KMartSheriff, on 06/12/2008, -0/+618 months? Wanna bet on that?
- BothBarsOn, on 06/12/2008, -2/+8Do you seriously think that the fact that you personally don't hate Vista is a rebuttal of the original article?
- StuartGibson, on 06/14/2009, -6/+12Vista worked fine for me, as in I didn't have hardware or reliability issues. But I found the whole Windows experience had got to the point that it was causing frustration in the stupid way things worked (by design), ludicrous slow downs on stuff like file transfers and rendering of windows and just a general feeling of lack of quality, polish and consideration for what the user wanted rather than what the OS wanted.
I'm on a Mac now and can't see MS managing to do anything in the next decade to change me back. So, in my case, the cost is a lost customer and anyone who asks my opinion on buying a PC. Love my 360 though. - inactive, on 06/12/2008, -2/+8They really shot themselves in the foot with all the different versions too...
- 471776, on 06/12/2008, -2/+8I'm a Vista user, and I haven't had any performance issues, and very few compatibility issues (all of which I have been able to fix). I can think of lots of advantages over XP.
That being said, I'm not sure I would buy Vista (I got it with a new PC) if I already had XP. There are plenty of nice features, but not necessarily enough to justify the cost and the hassle. - inactive, on 06/12/2008, -1/+7Should read MS: AT what cost the vista fiasco?
- dnields, on 06/12/2008, -2/+8Apparently, the article's headline was written by Master Yoda.
- FredFredrickson, on 06/12/2008, -3/+9Too expensive, too many versions.
- iKnowKungFoo, on 06/12/2008, -1/+7I've been using a dual 800Mhz Pentium III computer as my primary desktop since 2000. I only switched to a "modern" desktop in January because the main hard drive died and I didn't feel like dealing with IDE components anymore.
My P-III ran Windows 2000 just fine and I could play Half-Life 2 and a few other current games perfectly using a current generation AGP video card that supported dual monitors at 1600 x 1200. It also served as a perfectly fine web applications development platform.
Now I have a 64-bit 3Ghz Intel Celeron D computer from Dell that came with 32-bit Vista Basic. After adding a PCI-E card, more RAM and turning off all the graphical bells and whistles in Vista, I still can't run near as many applications at the same time as I could on the P-III machine.
But it works really well for games.
I installed a 2nd hard drive with 64-bit Ubuntu so I can get some actual work done. -
Show 51 - 100 of 242 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is