The good programmer that knows what he is doing and does it right the first time is getting to be an endangered species. I think there are 3 left by the last count. Trouble is, their fur looks the same from the outside as the more widely known crappy programmer who cuts corners and doesn't logic check his work. If this species dies out, our whole civilization may fall.

Shocker..  :LOL: 

WHAT there not using Vista? There goes my Microsoft stock :LOL:  

Frankly it makes sense to wait, the costs of upgrading 50,000 to 200,000 PCs on a Global Corporate's networks are very substantial, as is the time it takes even with the top range systems management toolsets to help them (aka Tivoli).

It would take a year or more to fully test and build a release for the respective network - no way is that number of PCs upgraded without extensive testing - corporate world wide network applications are too business critical to risk it. Then a deployment time of around a year to 18 months. There will be little time to get a return on the investment made (several tens of millions of dollars) before the next Windows circa 2010.

I doubt Microsoft expected them too, whatever statements are made in public.

The article is sabre rattling to drum up circulation. The stock will not even notice, the technology analysts in the major Financial Markets are well aware of the real issues for Major Global Corporates, and that is already factored in the stock price.

Regards
Zy

They're probably all running 1.7ghz Celerons with 512mb RAM and some Intel 865 graphics. Of course they don't want to run it on those. There's a good chance that 7 will clean up a lot of Vista's code, and then they will be able to upgrade to machines that are more reasonably priced at this time.

I got Vista Ultimate with SP1 free for my company From Microsoft Thanks MS

Very well said!! :CONGRAT:

I work for a very large IT company and have for the last 11 years.  We always wait a few years for everything to settle out before upgrading.  We'll probably switch to Vista when Win7 comes out (if enough of our clients do).

If MS puts out Windows updates too rapidly, our clients (and we) will probably ride the XP train until it ceases to run apps we need.

The consumer and corporate worlds really have different needs.  I think MS was better off with the NT product line so that business had a sense of long-term support.

meh, it's happened before. Vista's has the capability to be a great operating system, 4 or 5 years from now. When the general user's computer will have the resources to support it, and the code will have been (hopefully) repaired, people will love it, because it will run smoothly and look pretty. and Corporate America loves pretty things. case in point-Stardock. :LOL:

News flash, the same happened with XP. It also happened with Server 2003 and is happening with Server 2008, shocker? Not really. Major corporations never like to update unless its a last resort. The horse has been beat, its dead, quit hitting it.

I seriously doubt that system requirements for the next version of windows is going to be lower than vista. Machines will still need to be upgraded / replaced. Software will still need to be rewritten or patched. Testing will still need to be done.
Unless the software developers are more proactive with the next version of windows we will see this same scenario played out when it is released too.

You just have to like that comment.   

Well it's true. :p Everyone uses corporations as an example to not upgrade, and its a bad example..

Vista is a of an OS   

I don't understand the complaining that old hardware won't run Vista. Any Mac user will tell you that hardware limits the ability to update the OS. That is why Leopard does not run on a little G3 Mac.

There are going to be costs associated with a new OS. If you don't want to update your hardware, then by all means don't update the Software. Unless the businesses NEED Vista (for some unknown reason...seeing as it offers little more that cannot be found in other 3rd party software) they should be fine with staying the XP course.

But when the argument comes down to "Vista is dumb because you need a good video card!" then I get frustrated. Shut up and enjoy XP if you can't afford a video card.

Damn! Only 140 million copies sold?

The only shocker here is the fact that Micro$oft is actually wondering why.

 ;p 

I haven't had a crash since the first week of Vista use (bad drivers).
All my hardware works except for an ancient scanner no on my wife's PC.
It ran with the same memory I had with XP (but runs so much better with another gig of ram)/

Vista is a fine OS.

There are a lot of factors that work against migrating to MS's latest operating system every time they put one out.

If it isnt' broke, why spend the money fixing it? When you have 100k+ workstations in a managed envirmoment , and have no overriding concerns with hardware compatibilty/security why upgrade? IT in most companies is not a moneymaker and the CEOs/CFOs know this. They will manage the risks and upgrade only if there's a necessity for productivity/security.

As well, remember it's not only the softwate costs people take into consideration. Even if you have no hardware to buy , you still have to train your support in supporting your Vista Managed Enviroment, your staff in new versions of your applications, You would also have to upgrade applications , etc
that is a LOT , especially if you have customized applications.

This is not a critisizm of Vista. It took a LONG time for the company I work for to upgrade from NT4 to XP , mainly for the reasons above. Mabye by the time Windows Seven comes out people will have reasons to upgrade , Mabye not.

For a lot of people with more than 1-2-year-old machines, you're not talking about a simple video card upgrade to ensure that you can run Vista well. I have a single-core CPU, just upgraded my RAM from 1 to 2GB and an nvidia 7300GS card. Now, except for my CPU, I could run most versions of Vista pretty well (I upgraded the RAM for other reasons). A CPU upgrade is sufficiently expensive, especially if I want a "modern" processor (which won't fit my Socket 939 board, so add in the cost of a new mobo), that it's more practical to buy a new computer (which I can't afford to do).

So for a lot of people with slightly-older systems, you're talking about a 1) RAM, 2) CPU, and 3) video/graphics card upgrade. That's a lot of money to heap on top of what most people I've seen tend to agree is an overinflated price (and weird pricing scheme) for an OS upgrade. That's why consumers complain.

And, as PurrBall pointed out, many companies have large arrays of older computers with minimal graphical capabilities and probably don't relish the idea of buying all new computers.

i like vista. i like xp. i like linux too. oh and i like mac as well. every os has it's plus and minuses. they are all pretty good. just a matter of taste and opinion. :CONGRAT:

Yeah real funny to quote out of context.

Vista is dumb because you need a good video card.

There. I said it and I meant it.

Why? Because your operating system shouldn't be demanding a top-of-the-line video card, or another gig of memory, just to run. Demanding that sort of thing is what your applications are for.

The job of an operating system is to shut the hell up and run what you ask it to run. Not to be all flashy and "cool", and hog half your RAM and tax a sub-perfect GPU.

I most certainly can afford a video card, and yet last month, when I bought my brand-new loaded Alienware desktop, I ordered it with XP. If they wouldn't have offered that as an option, I would not have bought it.

What you say about shutting up and enjoying XP is all fine and dandy, as long as people are allowed to, which is not how Microsoft operates.

It's nearly impossible to buy a new computer from any major brand that doesn't force you to buy Vista. That's not choice.

Microsoft plans to completely halt sales of XP as of June 30, 2008. That's not choice.

I agree, choice is fine. Too bad Microsoft doesn't agree with us.

Is it really surprising? It's not like they haven't discontinued an operating system before, right?

I'm still running Windows 2000. It's a great OS, very stable, much less of a resource hog than XP or Vista, and also actually safer than these two. It runs every program I want it it to. So why should I upgrade to an inferior product?

Why should they? As long as they still sell the latest beast to meet targets (their targets, not headline induced commentator targets). When enough walk from it, they will change, until then they will move on. Thats fair enough, they are a business not a charity.



If you perceive it as inferior - no reason whatsover - I stuck with Win 98 for years, did what I needed it to do, in the end skipped straight to XP, dont give a hoot about being seen to use the "latest and Greatest". People use and buy on "perception" far more than anything else. Whether or not something else is "better" is irrelevant, if what people have now does the job, great ..... it would be insane to change just because something different has come out. Its the same with any product.


When Windows 7 comes out I'll guarantee all this fuss and blether will start again, always has going right back to Windows 1, everytime a new version comes out, nothing new. When you are the World Number 1 at anything, there is a big fat luminous Bullseye painted on your Butt, and many cant resist kicking it because its there. If you like it, buy it, if not, move on, life's too short ...  :LOL: 

Regards
Zy