Vista: Get it now or wait?

[ssampier]

...
I went in to interview for a temp job doing clerical work, and every training program they had was in Win2k, and Office 2000. When I commented on this, they told me that there was a significant percentage of companies that haven't upgraded.

Were these older machines or newer machines installed with W2k? The latter I can imagine is due to ease of desktop standardization.

 

[drothgery]

I agree that a company doesn't want an unsupported OS, but when the OS coming down the pike has stiffer system recomendations than the majority of apps a business runs (save for the engineering and graphics departments) - there is a problem.

When said stiffer requirements are easily met by $500 Best Buy specials, not really big issue; Vista will be rolled out with new PCs as part of regular hardware upgrade cycles.

 

[Vocenoctum]

While it's true that the companies wanted that, I also don't think MS had any qualms about it - look at their Zune - it's got DRM all over it, even to the point of adding to files that doesn't have it (if you want to share them)

I can't say that Zune fought over DRM. I'd assume that offering the music for sale, MS had DRM included as a part of the process of bargaining.

Either way, MS didn't dream up the DRM, and while I understand that folks hate the notion of DRM, I don't automatically blame MS for not somehow beating the companies into no DRM.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Were these older machines or newer machines installed with W2k? The latter I can imagine is due to ease of desktop standardization.

That I can't speak to... I only asked about software. I'm not sure they would have had that information anyway.

I've found (and maybe this sounds dumb because everyone knew it all around) that between people who know (what I would consider) a lot about computers, and people who know very little about computers, there's a very large third group who know about computers, but don't really care about them. They tend to treat them as appliances... they understand the concept that newer is better, but they wouldn't understand why. As long is it gets the job done, who cares if it's seven years old or seven months? It's like a washer and dryer, or a microwave, or a stove in that way.

I say this because I have the feeling had I asked that question, they wouldn't have really understood. As long as they worked, who cares why?

 

[IronWolf]

When said stiffer requirements are easily met by $500 Best Buy specials, not really big issue; Vista will be rolled out with new PCs as part of regular hardware upgrade cycles.

We don't generally rush out to Best Buy for our corporate PCs. In addition, my point was - I have PCs that are still in their hardware lifecycle and meet our current application needs with no issues. Yet, many of them still don't hit the recommended requirements of the OS! There is something wrong when the OS is outpacing all of my business application requirements (again save for an engineering department and graphics department). The OS is a tool to provide a platform to run business applications on.

And if I were to buy a new set of PCs today, I still couldn't order Vista on them. I have already received product alerts from some of our main business apps that they are not yet supported on Vista. Just as I need my OS's to be under support, I also need my business applications to be under support from their various vendors.

 

[IronWolf]

Either way, MS didn't dream up the DRM, and while I understand that folks hate the notion of DRM, I don't automatically blame MS for not somehow beating the companies into no DRM.

You are correct. But if consumers do not like DRM then they can vote with their dollars. We don't have to act like lemmings and follow the world over the cliff. People against DRM are entirely within reason to voice their dislike of DRM.

As for blaming MS, they have embraced DRM in their OS (to the point of requiring hardware companies to "certify" their drivers - i.e. provide a means of enforcing DRM) and in their music player. Sure Apple has DRM in their iPod, but normal MP3 files you copy to the device are not "infected". So MS is deserving of the ire - as are several other companies.

 

[Michael Morris]

A revision of copyright and trademark law is long overdue.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

As for a rush to move away. XP Pro is supposed to supported through mainstream channels for 2 years from the release of Vista. Plenty of time to plan that conversion to Linux! ::joking::

Why joke? Go for it! Penguin Power baby!

 

[babomb]

On the desktop? Wow, some corps need to re-evaluate their desktop rotation.

I think that's an overstatement. Windows 2000 is (IMO) the best OS Microsoft's ever made. For the majority of businesses, there was never a compelling reason to switch to XP. Lack of support is probably the ONLY reason to upgrade for many companies. I expect that most such companies are currently at least in the process of replacing it with XP, but there's not a HUGE hurry.

In Microsoft's defense, it IS undesirable to support 3 versions of Windows at the same time. Nevertheless, forcing upgrades no doubt plays a big part in the decision to stop support.

A revision of copyright and trademark law is long overdue.

QFT.

 

[borc killer]

The DRM in Vista is not something Windows dreamed up, but something that the two companies require for Microsoft to be able to access their content. Some feel that MS should have been able to force the two formats to be more open, but they didn't, so now it's MS's fault that the formats are hindered with crippling DRM.

Your forget! It is ALWAYS M$'s fault. hehe