D.Duck wrote:
wrote in message
news:mumdnXGcarqtC53VnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@gtinet...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:17:54 -0400, HK wrote:


His statement? Vista is a joke. Virtually no one is using it in the
business world, and no one is planning to migrate. If you have a
certain type of site license, you can continue to downgrade your new
machines to XP Pro even after the official "end-of-life", and that's
what all his client companies are doing.


Uh-huh.
You know, Harry, he may be right. Business has always been slower
picking up on a new OS. Migration and training costs sometimes keep them
with an older OS until there is a reason to upgrade, either needed
hardware replacement, or something in the newer software is needed. I
know you like Vista, and, frankly, I've never used it, but sell me. What
am I missing out on by not using Vista? What does it do, that couldn't
be done with XP?

I can dual boot Vista or WinXP. The only thing I've found in Vista that is
even remotely unique are the cutesy "gadgets".



After a few months, I found the VISTA "gadgets" annoying and shut them
down. The only "gadget" I have running on my Mac is one that shows the
local temp and weather when I click on it. I do like the way that VISTA
properly handles more bigtime programs being open and ready to use at
the same time than XP did.

On Apr 11, 4:42*pm, "JimH" wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in messagenews:mphvv3l23558u1em9beq81sgr6d542p0dc@4ax .com...





On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:48:50 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Harry isn't the only one who prefers a Non-Windows operating system

April 10, 2008 (Computerworld) Calling the situation "untenable" and
describing Windows as "collapsing," a pair of Gartner analysts yesterday
said Microsoft Corp. must make radical changes to its operating system
or risk becoming a has-been.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/...viewArticleBas....

It's kind of interesting. *I've seen Vista machines run fine and Vista
machines that run like over loaded 386s.

Hard to understand it.

Machines built to run VISTA run fine.


Yeah, those people at ComputerWorld don't know NEAR as much about
Vista as JimH and Harry. Neither do the programmers and engineers at
Microsoft.

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:48:50 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
"Reggie is Here wrote:

Harry isn't the only one who prefers a Non-Windows operating system


April 10, 2008 (Computerworld) Calling the situation "untenable" and
describing Windows as "collapsing," a pair of Gartner analysts yesterday
said Microsoft Corp. must make radical changes to its operating system
or risk becoming a has-been.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/...intsrc=hm_list

It's kind of interesting. I've seen Vista machines run fine and Vista
machines that run like over loaded 386s.

Hard to understand it.


Machines built to run VISTA run fine.

True. But no one builds them yet.

Vista runs like a slug.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:40:01 -0400, wrote:

am I missing out on by not using Vista? What does it do, that couldn't
be done with XP?
... or 98

Both Win2K and XP have much better stability than Win98, and both have
much better device driver support, memory management and networking
ability than Win98.

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:47:47 -0500, thunder wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:28:34 +0000, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?
command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9076698&intsrc= hm_list

It's kind of interesting. I've seen Vista machines run fine and Vista
machines that run like over loaded 386s.

Hard to understand it.

IMO, that article is quite right. Besides the hypervisor, Windows 7 is
to be based on a minimal kernel, MinWin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

The question is, will it be enough? I also find it quite humorous. If
you want to see what those great "innovators" in Redmond, will propose as
the latest and greatest in a year or two, look here, now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xen

I see the humor in it also. I feel I'm ready for the great innovation to
happen now.

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:22:08 -0400, JG2U wrote:


Right now, Vista is not even a blip on the radar in the real business
world. Retired guys farting around at home? Have fun beta testing!

Hey, I'm retired and ain't farting with it.
You know, I spent many years in IT on the application side, and never
paid much attention to the desktop images.
I recall when they switched from Novell to NT for networking, but
damned if I can remember any other Windows transitions.
The image team, as important as it was, was pretty small.
They knew what they were doing.
But most business users don't even know what version of Win
they're using, and that's what the image team shoots for.
They won't put something in that gets a lot of complaints
I was in a very large shop, so I don't know how it works with smaller
shops.
MS knows how many Vista business licenses it has sold, but maybe
they're not telling. They do have the ability to run roughshod over
business users to some extent, since the business infrastructure
heavily relies on them. But they can't push too hard.

--Vic (very satisfied with XP)

I was a tester for vista from the alpha stage. I know I've said this before,
but once all the testing was done, all of my machines went back to xp. Most
every tester agreed that vista wasn't ready for release, but the bean
counters at MS apparently said otherwise.

Clean install (2 machines) or upgrade (3 machines), it didn't matter...
vista was junk in my book, and many other's. I did like the aero look, and
windows mail, but that was about it. They asked me to test for sp1 and I
declined. Actually, I never declined, I just never participated.

--Mike


"JG2U" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:00:00 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:17:54 -0400, HK wrote:


His statement? Vista is a joke. Virtually no one is using it in the
business world, and no one is planning to migrate. If you have a
certain type of site license, you can continue to downgrade your new
machines to XP Pro even after the official "end-of-life", and that's
what all his client companies are doing.


Uh-huh.

You know, Harry, he may be right. Business has always been slower
picking up on a new OS. Migration and training costs sometimes keep them
with an older OS until there is a reason to upgrade, either needed
hardware replacement, or something in the newer software is needed. I
know you like Vista, and, frankly, I've never used it, but sell me. What
am I missing out on by not using Vista? What does it do, that couldn't
be done with XP?

It does require you to buy all new hardware, and twice as much memory,
as was required with XP.

It does require you to buy new applications that play well with Vista.

It does allow you to run all this slower, giving you more time to,
umm, not compute.

And last but not least, it does give you free MS support. Yes, that's
right! If you're running SP1 for Vista, MS is extending free support.
Why? It's not because they are generous and it's trouble-free, ya
know?

But in the end, I have no dog in this hunt. I'm typing this on a 3
month old laptop that's running Vista. I wouldn't run it on anything
else I have... I know better. I'll probably wipe this hard drive and
load a licensed copy of XP Pro I have. My 4 year old, slower
processor speed, half-as-much memory machine running XP runs circles
around this new machine running Vista. I can't wait to see what this
new machine can do with XP Pro.

As a side note, not one of our dozen software engineers at work are
running, or plan to run, Vista at work. We, as a company, are *not*
moving to Vista. We've only had a couple of enquiries from a couple
hundred customers about our products supporting Vista.

Right now, Vista is not even a blip on the radar in the real business
world. Retired guys farting around at home? Have fun beta testing!