Windows Vista has been on the market for nearly a month now, but enterprise users and industry experts agree that Microsoft's latest and greatest OS still isn't yet ready to replace XP. The problem is not with the software itself -- by most accounts, Vista is technically solid -- but with myriad peripheral issues that Microsoft must work out to take the pain out of using Vista.
Take patching, for example. On Dec. 12, Microsoft released an Internet Explorer 7 fix that improved the performance of IE's phishing filter. The software had been bogged down by Web sites with a large number of frames, and users had been complaining. Microsoft patched the problem for Windows XP and Server 2003 users, but not for Vista. That update will come after the consumer release of Vista hits the market some time in January, according to a spokeswoman for Microsoft's public relations agency. And although Microsoft is now issuing security patches for Vista, performance-related updates such as the phishing filter are being handled on a case-by-case basis, she said.
Microsoft won't say why it is holding off on some Vista patches even though the product is commercially available for business customers, but Russ Cooper, a senior information security analyst at Cybertrust, has a theory. "I say Microsoft never intended anybody to run Vista prior to January," he said. "What works on Vista, beyond Office 2007?" he asked. "I'm going to Vista ... when my VPN supplier tells me that they have drivers that work, and when my anti-virus vendor tells me that they have non-beta versions that work."
View: The full story
News source: InfoWorld
Take patching, for example. On Dec. 12, Microsoft released an Internet Explorer 7 fix that improved the performance of IE's phishing filter. The software had been bogged down by Web sites with a large number of frames, and users had been complaining. Microsoft patched the problem for Windows XP and Server 2003 users, but not for Vista. That update will come after the consumer release of Vista hits the market some time in January, according to a spokeswoman for Microsoft's public relations agency. And although Microsoft is now issuing security patches for Vista, performance-related updates such as the phishing filter are being handled on a case-by-case basis, she said.
Microsoft won't say why it is holding off on some Vista patches even though the product is commercially available for business customers, but Russ Cooper, a senior information security analyst at Cybertrust, has a theory. "I say Microsoft never intended anybody to run Vista prior to January," he said. "What works on Vista, beyond Office 2007?" he asked. "I'm going to Vista ... when my VPN supplier tells me that they have drivers that work, and when my anti-virus vendor tells me that they have non-beta versions that work."
View: The full story News source: InfoWorld
It is a little silly to say you are going to wait until SP1 or SP2, because the problems with Vista are lack of 3rd party support, MS is not going to make Vista work with your old Win3.1 software with a patch. However, I can fully understand waiting for vendors to add vista support.
other than some hardware support, and some os restrictions(quite a few artificial), 2k is far superior.
other than some hardware support, and some os restrictions(quite a few artificial), 2k is far superior.
Can you, uh, substantiate that?
Well, this is geared towards enterprise users. Many enterprises are either trying to figure out how to upgrade from 98/NT/2K to XP or to another OS platform. Vista hasn't even entered the equation. I know the corp IT guys at my company won't touch Vista with a 10 ft pole until at least SP2.
Because (prob like my company), you want things to be tested and tried to verify compatibility with software/hardware and other things. We never rolled out to XP until 2 years ago, prior to SP2. We were sitting on NT 4 forever. Plus, if you had any downtime, imagine the amount of money and revenue that would be lost trying to recover the OS on multiple machines.
It's generally a corporate practice for most companies, although I cannot speak for EVERYONE!
Exactly. Plus when you compound these problems times 45,000 employees (just in the Americas), it becomes a logistical nightmare. The IT division wants to make sure that ALL of the bugs are worked out before even thinking of upgrading. I've heard other sore spots from corp which include licensing issues, hardware requirements, and the fact that MS stripped Vista down to a version that is not much more than XP plus (as far as for business users).
You might want to stop using a home page that doesn't load properly every time. Try this home page:
about:blank
It loads instantly every time. Then, if you then click on a link to a page that won't load, you can open another window or tab and move on to a page that will load faster and go back to the slow-poke page after it's had time to load.
about:blank
It loads instantly every time. Then, if you then click on a link to a page that won't load, you can open another window or tab and move on to a page that will load faster and go back to the slow-poke page after it's had time to load.
In all your glorious wit you missed the point. The issue isn't the slow loading home page. It is IE freezing when it is loading the home page. Any capable browser wouldn't freeze when loading a website.
Really.
I have seven computers running variously XP SP2, 2003 Standard SP1, 2003 Enterprise SP1, 2003 Enterprise R2 – including one copy on a VMware Server (XP Host), Vista RTM, and Longhorn Server (August CTP). Every one runs IE7 without any significant problems except when there's a connection problem with whomever is serving the web pages.
This is to say that I don't have any problems with about 98+% of the websites that I visit. So excuuuuuuuuuse me if I've erroneously jumped to the conclusion that whatever problems people are experiencing have less to do with the browser they're using than with the web pages they're trying to load.
Last edited by Octol on 29 Dec 2006 - 02:30
I have used IE7 on a number of computers and my home page (by policy) is set to the companies internal site; meaning that when I am off the network work the site is always down yet I have never had to wait for it to timeout.
XP is fine for now and I know Vista is not the ulitmate answer to XP. So why replace XP then
Why were you excited about XP? (Unless you went from 9x to XP...)
I had to run Visual Studio and SQL server management studio as Administrator, and even then I have to supply the password each time. The Adobe updater constantly was having issues, and after a while, UAC got really annoying. Beta drivers for my sound card, Microsoft Mouse and Wireless keyboard, as well as a lot of other little things made me move back to XP for the time being. Once some of these glitches get worked out (I'm not saying they are all the fault of Vista) I will likely install Vista again.
Office 2007 is another story. I really like it.
Many programs still have compatibility issues, among them essentials like a decent firewall or antivirus.
For a good amount of hardware, the are no or only beta drivers out. Some older hardware won't run under Vista at all, as support for it was discontinued by the manufacturer.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.