Could this

While a post like that is generally nothing but flamebait, I'll answer anyway.

It by no means the end of Vista. Vista will live on no matter what, there is nothing anyone can do about that.

While I just skimmed the beginning of the article, it looks like this is mainly aimed as businesses and not the home user. This makes a lot of sense as most businesses will not upgrade to Vista anytime soon. A lot may have just migrated to XP not all that long ago and have everything setup for XP. Tossing Vista into the equation would result in increased TCO. Training on the IT level and training on the user level would be hell for most places.

It's generally a smart business move to use only one operating system on all systems to keep the costs down. If you only have to support one OS, it's a lot cheaper that way.

Trust me, the agency I work for has thousands of systems to manage and they range anywhere from Win95 to XP Pro. It has to be a nightmare trying to keep all of those systems managed. It probably shows with the stupidity of the IT staff considering I can usually fix a problem that comes up in half the time they take. If I'm not able to fix the problem, they usually can't either and I at least have a better idea of what does need to be done to fix the problem.

Cliffs:

1. Vista is not going to die.
2. Most businesses have no use for Vista at this time since many of them transferred to XP not too long ago.
3. Running mixed OSes in a business environment when not needed is an IT migraine headache and nightmare.
4. It's cheaper to keep all the OSes for the users the same.

 
Trust me, Vista is going to become mainstream eventually.

The problem was it just got released way too soon.

With the pending release of SP1, you'll find quite a few of the more common problems are fixed.

The main sticking point right now is lack of government contracts, eventually however, they will buy into Vista if not for IPSec integration alone, at that point in time, Vista will find itself of a great many more PC's.

Within a year I would bet.
 
It's possibly worth noting here that where I work, Vista is a distant prospect. We just recently ( within the past few months ) got everyone on to XP. It was due primarily to win2k being "just fine" ( which it is ). XP is arguably more robustly built than 2k and Vista is significantly different in it's security models and such. We are just not going to upgrade to Vista anytime in the forseeable future. It would be a very bad business decision.

Given that we filter all software requests before they get approved, we are not planning on approving any Vista only apps. Ever.
 
XOR != OR said:
It's possibly worth noting here that where I work, Vista is a distant prospect. We just recently ( within the past few months ) got everyone on to XP. It was due primarily to win2k being "just fine" ( which it is ).
Click to expand...

That's the thing people who engage in these somewhat ridiculous arguments mostly miss. To most businesses the importance of which Windows version is deployed, on a scale of 1 to 10, is about minus 8! If Vista (or even XP, perhaps) hasn't been deployed it's not because it has been assessed and rejected. It's generally because what is already in place works just fine. And if deploying 'Vista stuff' would be a bad business decision it is so because it is simply not opportune, at a particular point in time, for the business to go that route. It doesn't necessarily indicate any assessment of 'quality' one way or another about Vista itself.


Yet another anecdotal circumstamce.

I was chatting with a mate a day or two back, in one of his stores. He owns and manages a small regional chain of outdoor recreation equipment stores, and was sitting there attending to some business on an old Windows 2000 laptop. the IT operations of his business sits on a network of older hardware which runs Windows 2000.

Is he still using that stuff because he's made some sort of value assessment about Windows XP and Windows Vista? Not at all. The stuff he has in place works perfectly well for his purposes, and hasn't yet presented any problems or restrictions to him. On the scale of 'importance of business decisions' the choice of OS doen't really even rate 'low'. It's not on the scale at all, because it isn't in any way a decision he needs to confront.
 
Catweazle said:
That's the thing people who engage in these somewhat ridiculous arguments mostly miss. To most businesses the importance of which Windows version is deployed, on a scale of 1 to 10, is about minus 8! If Vista (or even XP, perhaps) hasn't been deployed it's not because it has been assessed and rejected. It's generally because what is already in place works just fine. And if deploying 'Vista stuff' would be a bad business decision it is so because it is simply not opportune, at a particular point in time, for the business to go that route. It doesn't necessarily indicate any assessment of 'quality' one way or another about Vista itself.


Yet another anecdotal circumstamce.

I was chatting with a mate a day or two back, in one of his stores. He owns and manages a small regional chain of outdoor recreation equipment stores, and was sitting there attending to some business on an old Windows 2000 laptop. the IT operations of his business sits on a network of older hardware which runs Windows 2000.

Is he still using that stuff because he's made some sort of value assessment about Windows XP and Windows Vista? Not at all. The stuff he has in place works perfectly well for his purposes, and hasn't yet presented any problems or restrictions to him. On the scale of 'importance of business decisions' the choice of OS doen't really even rate 'low'. It's not on the scale at all, because it isn't in any way a decision he needs to confront.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in addition, moving to a new OS often requires new hardware as well.

It's easy for us at home who goof around with our computers and just use them for things like web browsing and games to jump on new OSes, but businesses may have a lot of things set up a certain way and need to be sure everything works. At home, if we run into problems installing or configuring something, it's no big deal, but to a business that's downtime and can cost them. I got Vista 64 mostly to be "adventurous," but a business couldn't have that attitude.
 
I know with the software assurance program there are reasons for companies with VLK to switch over. It will be a free switch for them, and they won't have to pay for the operating system. So unless the cost of switching and training people is real high, I think that is motivation enough to switch.
 
Corporations will be very hesitant to make the switch and many will probably skip Vista altogether.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top