If geeks love it, we're on it

20 Comments:

1. Qeldroma
   23 Apr '07, 1:16 pm

   Quoting profdlp

   In any event, the XP party will end no later than January 31, 2008 when Microsoft will force manufacturers into a Vista-only "choice".

   You may actually start to see successful legal action taken against this type of thing out of Microsoft. It is being viewed by some very powerful organizations as an unfair monopoly practice that was basically illegalized with the Sherman Antitrust Act. If you’re interested, here is a link. While there WILL be many arguments and interpretations, there are companies who have a moratorium against installing Vista because of the damage it has been estimated it would do to their existing infrastructure. Many of these companies have existing agreements with PC computer companies like Dell.

   Other computer companies may jump on board because it may directly affect their sales as it has already. I have personally seen people in Best Buy find the computer they want and walk away (and probably buy it somewhere else) because they wouldn’t install XP. I personally think we need to see more of this.

   Until Microsoft shows us that moving to Vista is worth our while, this deadline is just a vapor-paper tiger. Either that or this could be one ugly court battle.
2. QCH
   23 Apr '07, 2:54 pm

   I know we're not moving to Vista for at least a Year. All PC's coming to us will be wiped and Windows XP will be installed. No questions asked...

   A year from now, we will probably leave Vista on the system. Out issue is training and support tools for us, the support staff. Drivers are not as important since 95% of our systems will be coming from major manufacturers, like Dell.
3. profdlp
   23 Apr '07, 6:49 pm

   I'm not sure you can force a company to offer a product it doesn't want to sell. (I'm not sure you can't, either, but that says more about the legal system than anything else.)

   Why not force Apple to offer an x86 OS not tied to particular hardware and which doesn't require the system overhead hit of using an emulator? That would solve any monopoly issues right there.

   Why not make a requirement that once an OS has officially been discarded it then becomes Open Source? I'm sure there are many third-party companies who would offer drivers and security updates for a small fee if they were allowed to profit from it.

   My guess is that if Vista proves problematic enough to a significant number of people that we'll see a "Vista Light" from MS at some point. But, if their sales figures are correct, that is not likely to happen.
4. mtrox
   24 Apr '07, 2:55 am

   Does anyone remember a MS Op Sys release that has gone like this? I know at first everyone whines, then after a while the fuss all dies down. But....I don't remember this much resistance.

   Personally, I use Vista every day and dislike it a little more all the time.
5. Qeldroma
   24 Apr '07, 11:51 pm

   Prof, I think the term that applies here is "Leveraging" for unfair advantage. I think MS can go only piss & kiss off so many folks before Uncle Sugar has to take action.

   Quoting mtrox

   Does anyone remember a MS Op Sys release that has gone like this? I know at first everyone whines, then after a while the fuss all dies down. But....I don't remember this much resistance.

   Personally, I use Vista every day and dislike it a little more all the time.

   Honestly, mtrox, Windows XP was a relief to me when it came out. Vista has been misery. More l8r.
6. mirage
   25 Apr '07, 5:31 pm

   From my point of view, the only unique advantage of Vista is DX10. I do not care about the advertised wow factor and I have never had security problems on XP. Given that there are no DX10-only games yet, and the reviews of Nvidia's latest mainstream DX10 GPU's, 8600 and 8500, are not stellar, there is no Vista obligation for me (and for many others, I guess) until at least 2008. I am glad I bought a X1950XT for $170 since it performs much better than any 8600 and 8500 in Windows XP.
7. Butters
   26 Apr '07, 3:15 am

   This was interesting since I tried to request PC's with XP on them from dell over a month ago. We had purchased 5 a month ago, after finding a deal on a certain pc, but Dell wouldn't sell it to us with XP installed. After the run around, we had to settle on the Optiplex 320 line with Pentium D's. Now we are stuck with these and are getting more of the same versions for ease of making images. The PC's we wanted with Core2's are probably available in XP now.

   For what my company does, XP works, nothing more, nothing less. From a support standpoint, 300+ users already using XP, it would just be another pain to try to support vista, plus all wacky label/UPS/dot matrix/laser printers that still don't work on XP.. lol... not to mention our terminal emulation software which is just pitiful on Vista.
8. QCH
   26 Apr '07, 3:53 am

   With that many users, you should have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft. If so, you can always use an older version of an OS. That is, If you buy a system with Vista, wipe it and install WinXP.
9. profdlp
   26 Apr '07, 5:45 pm

   Quoting mtrox

   Does anyone remember a MS Op Sys release that has gone like this? I know at first everyone whines, then after a while the fuss all dies down. But....I don't remember this much resistance...

   The funny thing is, depending on which set of statistics you go by, Vista has outsold XP up to this point in their respective releases. In other words, more people have jumped on Vista after three months than went for XP.

   This could be due to a number of reasons, with these possibly being two likely factors:

   1) It's been so long since XP came out that many people were eager for an "upgrade" and would have bought almost anything.

   2) Perhaps new PC sales have been stronger than when XP was released, leading to more "automatic" sales due to it being included with new systems.

   As for user disgruntlement, I always take Internet whining with a grain of salt. (I'm speaking in a general sense here - I'll get to Vista in a minute.)

   There will always be those who grumble at Microsoft over matters which are actually their own fault. How many of the complaints of this type are coming from people who are too dumb to find the right drivers for their hardware, or are too dumb to install it properly even if they do? How many folks rushed out to upgrade without checking the hardware compatibility list? How many gripe about a feature they don't like, when it is something which can easily be turned off?

   I bought my first computer in May of 1995. It came with Win3.1. Three months later Win95 came out (no, I did not get a free upgrade coupon...) and I upgraded. I remember spending several days wondering why I had foolishly spent ninety bucks just to screw my computer up, and at one point even tried to use the restore disc to undo the damage. Fortunately, my good old 14.4 modem still worked and I managed to track down the proper drivers to get my sound working again and get my video out of 16-color mode. I learned a lot about computers that week, but I wonder how many people in the same situation would never have come to realize, as I did - eventually, that none of the problems were actually the fault of the new OS?

   Then there are the more legitimate complaints which may not be Microsoft's fault. Last Summer I threw away a perfectly good scanner which never had a post-Win98 driver released for it. That was the scanner manufacturer's fault, but how many people would unfairly blame that blankety-blank Win2K/WinXP/Vista because their hardware stopped working?

   Finally, no matter how extensive the beta testing program, no one should expect everything to be perfect until after the OS has been released for some time. I wouldn't expect a perfect dining experience from a restaurant which only opened yesterday, nor would I expect perfection from a brand new OS.

   Having said that, the big difference I see today is that the bulk of the dissatisfaction with Vista seems to be coming from the people who know the most about computers. All of the examples I described above stem from casual computer user not having the expertise to undertake a significant OS upgrade. Today, it seems like the most knowledgeable folks are the ones griping the loudest.

   Quoting Qeldroma

   Prof, I think the term that applies here is "Leveraging" for unfair advantage. I think MS can go only piss & kiss off so many folks before Uncle Sugar has to take action...

   I'm not disagreeing with that at all as a statement of fact, but I have to wonder how fair it actually is to do that. If a TV network decides to cancel a popular show because they have something to replace it with which they think will generate more ad revenue, are they breaking the law? And, a lot of the cries of "monopoly" made in regard to Microsoft are coming from the same people who wouldn't think of using any of the alternatives available to them.

   Quoting mirage

   From my point of view, the only unique advantage of Vista is DX10...

   I hear that a lot, but wonder about the irony of gamers rushing out to buy an OS which promises better game performance due to DX10, then give much of it back by having to live with the high resource hit of that same OS. It's like scoring front row tickets to the Super Bowl, then finding out that you're sitting behind the pier supporting the upper deck.
10. Qeldroma
    27 Apr '07, 12:10 am

    Quoting profdlp

    The funny thing is, depending on which set of statistics you go by, Vista has outsold XP up to this point

    Look at what Q wrote- they bought Vista licenses but aren’t using them. They are really using XP. Vista looks like it’s doing better on paper, but the truth is disguised. I have Vista on my machine, but I use XP because I can’t get everything I want to work on Vista. Many consumer programs still do not have a Vista version out and some that do are defective. So I stay with XP. Present company excluded, THERE IS NOT ONE SOUL I KNOW OF WHO USES VISTA EXCLUSIVELY yet and many who got it (by purchase or with their system) wound up paying MS TWICE to get XP (MS suffers not here) or went to Linux.

    Quoting profdlp

    … the big difference I see today is that the bulk of the dissatisfaction with Vista seems to be coming from the people who know the most about computers.

    Look at the trouble we are having getting things running in the consumer world on Vista where vested-interest mega companies like nVidia exist. Now go to the professional world where there are myriads of specialized, home- or contract- brewed tools and test applications that enjoy little or no support. It looks to cost MILLIONS to get them running on Vista. Many PC Vendors like Dell have a contract in place to cycle-upgrade PCs after a period- let’s say 3 years (which is very typical). If what MS is stating comes to pass, that means 1/3 of the entire PC inventory will be upgraded every year with an OS that won’t run the code needed to do business.

    The big difference you are seeing, I think, is that MICROSOFT HAS NEVER BEEN SO ENTRENCHED IN THE PROFESSIONAL COMMUNITY BEFORE. Code we first developed on Windows NT 3.51 has worked with little trouble or change for 12 years through NT 4.0, Win2K, and XP- all PROFESSIONAL OSs. But it doesn’t work on Vista. So why do we HAVE to have Vista forced on us with our PC turnover? Is MS going to volunteer to pay for our fixes? Or are they going to charge us again for new training, software, etc. And it was set up so we would HAVE to do it…? Isn’t that nice for MS if all they have to do is generate a “necessary incompatibility” anytime they want the next huge infusion of cash?

    OK, maybe administrators and server-side may see a big benefit from Vista, but client-side … .

    I build systems that also need remote operation from the internet. Guess what Vista doesn’t do.

    So the question arises- Why? What is the real motive that makes Microsoft forsake much backward compatibility to go with Vista? Force people to use the internet? Do you really think that Aero, DX10, etc., etc., really couldn’t have been developed on an XP compatible engine? The true answers to those questions may well be the ones that made us generate the SAA in the first place. For businesses like mine, it may also be something that MS should understand- a matter of dollars and sense.

    So yes, for that kind of money, there are options. Personally, I’m thinking of seeing how truly compatible Linux VMs are- and maybe help make MS and their friends “understand” that way.

    Grrrr … This post is long enough …
11. mtrox
    27 Apr '07, 12:32 am

    Quoting Qeldroma

    Look at the trouble we are having getting things running in the consumer world on Vista where vested-interest mega companies like nVidia exist.

    "Vested-inerest" companies are both large and small. If you don't believe me, you've never been around some small businesses. And large companies like nVidia can get you products no guy in his garage can come near developing.

    I like what Prof said:

    Quoting profdlp

    And, a lot of the cries of "monopoly" made in regard to Microsoft are coming from the same people who wouldn't think of using any of the alternatives available to them.

    So use something else Qeldroma.

    I'm disappointed this disolves into the same old "M$ is big so they suck" discussion. I have reasons I don't like Vista. I've been more and more vocal about them. But they have nothing to do with the size of the company who made it.
12. Qeldroma
    27 Apr '07, 12:54 am

    Quoting mtrox

    So use something else Qeldroma.

    I hear what you are saying, mtrox. But it's by contract and it's not my call. I am looking at Linux alternatives as one of the options in case they may ask me for one.

    Understand that this is more than simple grouse.
13. bothered
    28 Apr '07, 8:17 am

    Quoting profdlp

    In any event, the XP party will end no later than January 31, 2008 when Microsoft will force manufacturers into a Vista-only "choice".

    Quoting Qeldroma

    You may actually start to see successful legal action taken against this type of thing out of Microsoft. It is being viewed by some very powerful organizations as an unfair monopoly practice that was basically illegalized with the Sherman Antitrust Act.

    Somebody said something to me the other day. They said "if a motor manufacturer introduced a newer model and stopped selling the older one nobody would complain".
    It's a thought.
14. Thrax
    28 Apr '07, 4:28 pm

    They would if it succeeded an infinitely better engine, with significantly greater gas mileage, reliability and a much lower TCO.
15. mmonnin
    28 Apr '07, 5:04 pm

    Who else would like to see a boycott on Vista, just to trump Microsoft? To put them in their place. A boycott from Dell would make M$ listen.

    2) Perhaps new PC sales have been stronger than when XP was released, leading to more "automatic" sales due to it being included with new systems.

    Prof: I think you mean Vista and not XP if Vista has out sold XP in each of their first few months of sales.
16. profdlp
    28 Apr '07, 5:14 pm

    Quoting mmonnin

    Who else would like to see a boycott on Vista, just to trump Microsoft? To put them in their place. A boycott from Dell would make M$ listen.

    Don't hold your breath.

    PS: Automatic deduction in points for using the term "M$".

    Quoting profdlp

    2) Perhaps new PC sales have been stronger than when XP was released, leading to more "automatic" sales due to it being included with new systems.

    Quoting mmonnin

    Prof: I think you mean Vista and not XP if Vista has out sold XP in each of their first few months of sales.

    Huh?

    If new PC sales now are stronger than when XP was released it would account for some of Vista's increase in sales.
17. mmonnin
    28 Apr '07, 6:47 pm

    I missed the word 'than' in your line....which would reversed your thought. My bad.
18. profdlp
    29 Apr '07, 10:35 pm

    Here's a fun read for anyone who can't get enough of this sort of thing.

    I wonder how the guy really feels.
19. mtrox
    30 Apr '07, 12:38 am

    Quoting profdlp

    Here's a fun read for anyone who can't get enough of this sort of thing.

    That's a great read Prof.

    Quoting profdlp

    I wonder how the guy really feels.

    I just watched George Tenet on 60 Mins. I had the same feeling about him. I don't believe everything he says, but I damn well know how he feels.

    I was a little too hard on Qeldroma. Yea MS can put out mistakes and in theory we can all just abandon them and go elsewhere. But in reality, a lot of us feel we are a bit invested in their stuff. We have lots of Windows software, MS knowlege, MS customers, etc. What frustrates us then, is the feeling that MS doesn't care what we want: they tell us what we want. And there is the feeling that its time for us to talk back.
20. Qeldroma
    2 May '07, 12:52 am

    Quoting mtrox

    I was a little too hard on Qeldroma.

    Nah. You were really quite polite.

    Quoting Thrax

    They would if it succeeded an infinitely better engine, with significantly greater gas mileage, reliability and a much lower TCO.

    I think Thrax states the problem for corporate Microsoft customers quite well. Had Microsoft developed a product that did not affect the TCO so much for so many, this thread would not be so long. I’d probably be on board.

    Companies bound by contract are legally compelled to honor (pay for) their agreement. However, these contracts can be broken without penalty if it can be demonstrated in court that an illegal practice such as an SAA violation is involved.

    Corporations do not think in terms of outrage. They estimate the cost of doing business and the probabilities of success. If it is estimated with a degree of confidence that it is more cost effective to go to court and have Microsoft prosecuted for an SAA violation than it is to pay for the cost of installing Vista, then they will do so.

    If they determine that it makes more dollars and sense to go to Linux- then they will do that.

    They may opt to do both. It is all really quite cold-blooded when a large amount of capital is involved and at stake.

    My opinion is as stated in my first post: I don’t think Microsoft can make the 2008 deadline stick.

    I apologize if I got in too deep trying to explain why.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Troll-free since 2003 ®

Are you HUMAN or a SPAMBOT?

Advertisement

Advertisement