Windows 7 Coming As Vista Bulks Up Bandwidth Costs
- Thread starter dafloppyone
- Start date
There's never been a compelling reason for businesses to upgrade quickly to the next version of windows... There are plenty of businesses now that still run Win2k. Any OS has to offer massive advantages to a business to justify the disruption of a significant system overhaul.
Business adoption is a really bad metric to determining an OS's usefulness.
I'm with Nathan on most of the points.
When I first tried Vista, which seems like ages ago now, I was initially frustrated. Mainly because I had gotten so used to XP it was like a comfy armchair. I initially then went back to XP. The back to Vista then back to XP, etc.
I finally installed Vista around 6-8 months ago and have never looked back. Why? Because the subtle changes that they have released via WU have made it even better. The interface is pretty and very customisable. The IPv6 they have in there is going to be essential moving forward as we are using up all of the IPv4 addresses much quicker than anticipated. It does take some getting used to but you are moving to an entirely new Operating System. I have not used an OS which as reliable as this before. XP used to be pretty solid but it's not in the same league as Vista. With XP I used to have it on for a couple of weeks then it would be sluggish. With Vista I've had it on for a couple of months with no problems.
I'm also enjoying DirectX 10 with Lord Of The Rings Online - it does look different and the graphics and effects are unbelievable.
Lets face it, whatever Microsoft released would be pulled apart in seconds by Mac / Linux users. There's a hell of a lot of changes under the bonnet and sooner or later you will want to upgrade because one day the one thing you want to use (be it a utility or game) will only be available on Vista.
M.
When I first tried Vista, which seems like ages ago now, I was initially frustrated. Mainly because I had gotten so used to XP it was like a comfy armchair. I initially then went back to XP. The back to Vista then back to XP, etc.
I finally installed Vista around 6-8 months ago and have never looked back. Why? Because the subtle changes that they have released via WU have made it even better. The interface is pretty and very customisable. The IPv6 they have in there is going to be essential moving forward as we are using up all of the IPv4 addresses much quicker than anticipated. It does take some getting used to but you are moving to an entirely new Operating System. I have not used an OS which as reliable as this before. XP used to be pretty solid but it's not in the same league as Vista. With XP I used to have it on for a couple of weeks then it would be sluggish. With Vista I've had it on for a couple of months with no problems.
I'm also enjoying DirectX 10 with Lord Of The Rings Online - it does look different and the graphics and effects are unbelievable.
Lets face it, whatever Microsoft released would be pulled apart in seconds by Mac / Linux users. There's a hell of a lot of changes under the bonnet and sooner or later you will want to upgrade because one day the one thing you want to use (be it a utility or game) will only be available on Vista.
M.
I will never see the point of this tabloid style reporting. They only ever come from one angle and never actually report the whole truth or multiple perspectives. Where is the mention of the fact that the majority of people using Vista are perfectly happy with it.
As far as I'm concerned Vista has been a success, it looks good, Microsoft have supported it totally and its a doddle to use. The technical improvements over XP are plain for all to see.
Oh and on the updates subject, worry when Microsoft stop producing them not when they are churning them out like they currently are.
As far as I'm concerned Vista has been a success, it looks good, Microsoft have supported it totally and its a doddle to use. The technical improvements over XP are plain for all to see.
Oh and on the updates subject, worry when Microsoft stop producing them not when they are churning them out like they currently are.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
If your company, with the largest AD in Europe, has upgraded to Vista without a proper roll out of Server 2008, then I am hugely worried about your IT management.
XP was a bit 'flaky' on a domain before Server 2003, but as soon as you marry the two up together, you get a powerful, reliable network environment.
I wouldn't expect most businesses to seriously start rolling out Vista as the de facto OS until at least the 3rd quarter of this year.
Burnsy
And to think you chastised someone for not knowing their subject area.
Is there a point to your post?
Hello thought, may I suggest having a look at this thread here and reading through the article before saying that all that Windows Vista is, is a pretty interface.
I never said there weren't improvments...
Do we have a large proportion of people who work for microsoft on here?!
I have used Microsoft since 3.1 days, never used Apple (except for work) so my view point is totally independent - I just think as a whole Vista is a let down... not completly useless.
Do we have a large proportion of people who work for microsoft on here?!
Interesting comment but no I don't think many folks here are on the Microsoft payroll
OcUK is not the only forum where people actually, surprise surprise, *like*
Vista... there are millions of Vista users over the world that are happy with the OS
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Why do people immediatly think that anyone who likes MS software or knows about it in any depth has to work for Microsoft?Do we have a large proportion of people who work for microsoft on here?!
Burnsy
Enough to warrant a reply.
What were the previous annoyances with Tiger if you don't mind me asking? I'm not saying OS X is perfect but it seems to be a rather sweeping statement to say the operating system even warranted a service-pack like update. Leopard was a developer's update for a future platform - a lot of the actual operating system wasn't changed because it didn't need to be. 64-bit was a big enough part of that.
As for the latest Windows release not being a 'playground boasting brownie point'. You have it very wrong, it was exactly that on this forum on release. It is perhaps not as much as OS X, because more problems are experienced with Windows and certainly with Vista. People back off because of that afterwards. The blame isn't down to Microsoft but certainly 3rd parties.
You mention OS X is updated more regularly or Windows less so, but also at a considerably different cost if you want the best possible version of the operating system. Vista Ultimate Retail (£346.98) and Leopard OS X Retail (£78.78) from a competitive e-tailer. The OEM is more expensive than the retail version of Leopard even after price reductions too.
Last edited:
Enough to warrant a reply.
What were the previous annoyances with Tiger if you don't mind me asking? I'm not saying OS X is perfect but it seems to be a rather sweeping statement to say the operating system even warranted a service-pack like update. Leopard was a developer's update for a future platform - a lot of the actual operating system wasn't changed because it didn't need to be. 64-bit was a big enough part of that.
As for the latest Windows release not being a 'playground boasting brownie point'. You have it very wrong, it was exactly that on this forum on release. It is perhaps not as much as OS X, because more problems are experienced with Windows and certainly with Vista. People back off because of that afterwards. The blame isn't down to Microsoft but certainly 3rd parties.
You mention OS X is updated more regularly or Windows less so, but also at a considerably different cost if you want the best possible version of the operating system. Vista Ultimate Retail (£346.98) and Leopard OS X Retail (£78.78) from a competitive e-tailer. The OEM is more expensive than the retail version of Leopard even after price reductions too.
You seem to have taken issue with my clearly tongue-in-cheek bullet point list? It wasn't meant to be analysed in detail in this way.
I find it funny though that you seem to be indicating that you believe there wasn't any annoyances in the previous Mac release(s). Can this really be true? IMO every OS has its faults. I even said in the post prior to that one: "XP looks so terribly dated now and they are fed up looking at its ugly mug." So it's not like I'm being terribly biased or anything. Although I can see how that particular point could have been misinterpreted by Mac zealots just skim reading the thread out of context.
CBA replying to half of what you wrote, no offence intended. I just don't want to get enrolled in yet another debate of this type. But even then I don't disagree with many of your points... There is a time and a place for this discussion though. Personally I don't think my funny bullet point list warranted this type of response from yourself.
Really the point I was trying to make was that Caged's view that Mac OSX sells better in his shop than Windows was perhaps not entirely accurate of the bigger picture. There were many variables unaccounted for. I'm sure he knew of this... I just felt like pointing them out.
You forgot to mention that Apple add the extra cost of OS X onto the hardware. And then they limit you to purchasing their machines.
I was just interested to see what problems you had with Tiger to warrant the service pack 'cough'. As I said in my post, OS X is not perfect but I did feel Tiger performed pretty damn well. The same way I thought XP performed pretty damn well too - I still think it's an excellent operating system and will be using it in the near future, despite having a copy of Vista sitting here on my desk.
mr.sly, Apple and Microsoft are not the same type of company and they can tie their software to their hardware if they so wish. Microsoft and Bill Gates from the very beginning had a very different type of dream.
I just think Microsoft dropped the ball with Vista. There were a few bits and pieces I liked with it, for example when I used the Windows Update on an old machine and it picked up all the drivers for the ancient hardware, the Spotlight-esque search inside the Windows start bar too, was a very nice feature.
I just had too many problems with it, especially with graphics drivers and games. Games don't make the world go round but for what was supposed to be once touted as a 'games platform' in its development days, it just disappointed.
There's a lot of happy customers with Vista that you don't and won't ever hear from (because very few speak up when they're happy) but for me it was just a constant interruption. To the point where I just got fed up after buying a £1,500 machine. I know I'm not the only one who had problems and when people were pushing Michael's company (not sure if it's a competitor) to sell their computers with XP, it was a further kick in the teeth to the os.
I'm looking forward to seeing what Microsoft can do with this new version of Windows. As a user of both platforms I think Apple have the upper hand at the moment, quite comfortably in terms of quality. Obviously market-share in this type of argument would be completely irrelevant. I also think Vista has done more damage than good to Microsoft's reputation.
No worries about not wanting to debate, it's been done and dusted so many times it's regurgitation of the highest order. I was just interested in views more so than stirring up os vs os pot.
mr.sly, Apple and Microsoft are not the same type of company and they can tie their software to their hardware if they so wish. Microsoft and Bill Gates from the very beginning had a very different type of dream.
I just think Microsoft dropped the ball with Vista. There were a few bits and pieces I liked with it, for example when I used the Windows Update on an old machine and it picked up all the drivers for the ancient hardware, the Spotlight-esque search inside the Windows start bar too, was a very nice feature.
I just had too many problems with it, especially with graphics drivers and games. Games don't make the world go round but for what was supposed to be once touted as a 'games platform' in its development days, it just disappointed.
There's a lot of happy customers with Vista that you don't and won't ever hear from (because very few speak up when they're happy) but for me it was just a constant interruption. To the point where I just got fed up after buying a £1,500 machine. I know I'm not the only one who had problems and when people were pushing Michael's company (not sure if it's a competitor) to sell their computers with XP, it was a further kick in the teeth to the os.
I'm looking forward to seeing what Microsoft can do with this new version of Windows. As a user of both platforms I think Apple have the upper hand at the moment, quite comfortably in terms of quality. Obviously market-share in this type of argument would be completely irrelevant. I also think Vista has done more damage than good to Microsoft's reputation.
No worries about not wanting to debate, it's been done and dusted so many times it's regurgitation of the highest order. I was just interested in views more so than stirring up os vs os pot.
You'd be right in assuming that. I know that the vast majority of Windows licenses are sold OEM and come with a PC, and that the market for selling Vista upgrades is comparatively tiny.
However, I would guess that the number of people who have upgraded from XP (as opposed to buying a new PC) as a percentage of XP users is less than those who purchase Mac OS 10.4 to 10.5 upgrades, and there's a reason for this. Either that is because they'd rather just buy a new PC (since they're so cheap compared to Macs), or it's because people don't want to upgrade / see no benefit in doing so. I'm aware that 99% of the issues people have with Vista (and hence what forms the basis of most gutter-press reports) is down to 3rd party drivers or software, but this doesn't stop it from being Microsoft's problem, since that's what stands in the way of people upgrading en-masse.
I'm not a Mac user but I do know that traditionally each new Mac release doesn't tend to have anywhere near as many new features as a typical new Windows release does. That was the reason for my immature "cough" quip suggesting that Mac releases are really more akin to "service packs" in the Windows world
It's a view shared by many Windows professionals to be honest. Don't take offence - it's not like you're the man at Apple who says what goes into each new release is it? Or are you? 
Don't disagree that Vista has damaged their rep. But I don't think it's of any fault of the product as such. Yes there is a few flaws that annoy certain types of users or companies. But overall its a well put together OS. The main thing that ruined Vista and gave it so much bad press is the "expectations" that Microsoft set in the early years of Longhorn. Unfortunately some of these expectations fell short of the mark on the Vista launch. This has resulted in what effectively amounts to a "public beating" of Microsoft by the tech media. God knows why - it's not like XP was any a better OS in relative terms. In fact relatively speaking I would say Vista was substantially better than XP. Especially at this stage in its lifecycle. Right about now XP was getting battered by worm after worm after worm and spyware after spyware after spyware. That hasn't happened on Vista yet and fundamentally from a technical standpoint it *can't* happen either. Which is a good thing.
Apple may have the upper hand in a few areas surrounding "ultimate product quality". But often it is at the expense of features or backward compatibility or standards compliance. Contrary to a lot of the press surrounding Microsoft they are a remarkably standards compliant company. Yes they have a few blackholes in there, most particularly where there are large sums of money involved
But on smaller matters they are incredibly standards compliant. For instance a lot of the configuration files in Windows now are stored in XML. Vista has native RSS support... Their unwavering support of Web Services (believe it or not these *are* a standard)... Simple things like that.Vista has laid a good foundation for another decade of development. There is a lot of new technology in Vista that isn't really immediately apparent. The biggest of these is WPF. This is the new all encompassing way that user interfaces, graphics, animation etc are displayed on screen. This is increasingly taking hold in the Windows world and by the time Windows 7 ships people will really start understanding what Vista was really all about (unfortunately by then it will be too late).
Not wanting to slate Mac but it doesn't have anything anywhere near as good as WPF. The only thing that remotely compares is SVG but that is from the 1990's... say no more. It has taken Microsoft probably a decade of development to get WPF working. It is built upon .NET technology which itself is still relatively new but exceptionally mature now. And WPF's markup language is built on XML. So it is almost like the culmination of many different layers in the long-term Microsoft roadmap have been completed with the launch of Vista. Yes these technologies aren't all that visible right now but that will gradually change. Now that Silverlight is making its debut there will be more and more websites that start using that technology (which itself is built upon a lightweight version of WPF.)
Then there is the whole "web services" web 2.0 thang going on. A new programming framework launched during the Vista Wave called WCF (Windows Communication Foundation) is now on its second revision. The only framework that Mac has in comparison is Java. Web services on that is pretty good but it pales in comparison to WCF in my opinion. Unfortunately Java is also quite slow in comparison to .NET (there is no JIT'er) so it's not really on equal footing for a comparison anyway.
This may all seem a bit techie but that's what this thread subject needs. If we are going to discuss something like this it has to be done properly and that means discussing the fundamental technologies and development frameworks that the operating system/vendor provides for advancement of the platform going forward.
We haven't upgraded - and certainly have no plans to (that was the point i was trying to make).
If anything, we'll skip Vista and wait for Windows 7 (as i 'think' a lot of enterprises may well do).