Some customers are considering whether to deploy Windows Vista or whether to skip in anticipation of Windows 7.The discussion is often phrased as one of balancing costs and timing of releases. By not deploying Windows Vista, it means missing out on the proven benefts such as better security, productivity, search, mobility, manageability, and infrastructure optimization. Windows Vista works with more applications and devices than ever before and can be signifcantly less expensive to support than Windows XP SP3.
There is no need to wait for Windows 7. It is a goal of the Windows 7 release to minimize application compatibility for customers who have deployed Windows Vista since there was considerable kernel and device level innovation in Windows Vista. The Windows 7 release is expected to have only minor changes in these areas. Customers who are still using Windows XP when Windows 7 releases will have a similar application compatibility experience moving to Windows 7 as exists moving to Windows Vista from Windows XP.
Historically, mainstream deployment occurs not when Microsoft releases a product but 18 months later. While the mainstream deployment cycle is beginning for Windows Vista now, it isn’t expected to begin for Windows 7 until at least mid-2011
May i ask what this sysprep bug is?
May i ask what this sysprep bug is?
You put the network location in the unattended.xml file an it just ignores it. So when you deploy, all the machines boot up and ask you to select a network location.
You mean the glitch that's easily fixed by 5 seconds of net searching and adding the following to the xml file?
Vista Sysprep.xml fix
You mean the glitch that's easily fixed by 5 seconds of net searching and adding the following to the xml file?
Vista Sysprep.xml fix
Yay a ****ty workaround that I already knew about. If I wanted a patchwork network I'd deploy win98, 95, maybe a few linux distros here and there. I want a real fix.
May i ask what this sysprep bug is?
You put the network location in the unattended.xml file an it just ignores it. So when you deploy, all the machines boot up and ask you to select a network location.
May i ask what this sysprep bug is?
You put the network location in the unattended.xml file an it just ignores it. So when you deploy, all the machines boot up and ask you to select a network location.
Haha you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Are you saying that clicking work on over 200 workstations is easy? Might aswell install the OS and software on each PC manually, the point of deployment is automation, sysprep doesnt deliver this and therefore is a bug worth mentioning.
You mean the glitch that's easily fixed by 5 seconds of net searching and adding the following to the xml file?
Vista Sysprep.xml fix
Yay a ****ty workaround that I already knew about. If I wanted a patchwork network I'd deploy win98, 95, maybe a few linux distros here and there. I want a real fix.
Hah, anybody wanna bet this guy never heard of the fix until now and still dosen't have a clue what to do with the xml file?
You mean the glitch that's easily fixed by 5 seconds of net searching and adding the following to the xml file?
Vista Sysprep.xml fix
Yay a ****ty workaround that I already knew about. If I wanted a patchwork network I'd deploy win98, 95, maybe a few linux distros here and there. I want a real fix.
Hah, anybody wanna bet this guy never heard of the fix until now and still dosen't have a clue what to do with the xml file?
Anybody wanna bet...get ****ed. Cause its oh so hard to put a reg add command into the section of the xml files where you add commands. I want a real fix, not a band-aid. Others might be happy with half assed software, but when I pay for a something, I expect it to work.
You mean the glitch that's easily fixed by 5 seconds of net searching and adding the following to the xml file?
Vista Sysprep.xml fix
Yay a ****ty workaround that I already knew about. If I wanted a patchwork network I'd deploy win98, 95, maybe a few linux distros here and there. I want a real fix.
Hah, anybody wanna bet this guy never heard of the fix until now and still dosen't have a clue what to do with the xml file?
Anybody wanna bet...get ****ed. Cause its oh so hard to put a reg add command into the section of the xml files where you add commands. I want a real fix, not a band-aid. Others might be happy with half assed software, but when I pay for a something, I expect it to work.
Why so serious?
You mean the glitch that's easily fixed by 5 seconds of net searching and adding the following to the xml file?
Vista Sysprep.xml fix
Yay a ****ty workaround that I already knew about. If I wanted a patchwork network I'd deploy win98, 95, maybe a few linux distros here and there. I want a real fix.
Do you want it to make you a coffee and give you a happy ending as well?
"It is a goal of the Windows 7 release to minimize application compatibility for customers who have deployed Windows Vista since there was considerable kernel and device level innovation in Windows Vista.
HAHA... i DONT think that's what they're trying to do ROFL!
It's a freaking Word document on Microsoft.com. In other news, read how Linux may realize your dreams entirely for free at Ubuntu.com. :-p
They forget that Vista costs money and Windows 7 may be out late next year already. And that XP still works, and works well, for a lot of people.
The result of that formula is not to uninstall XP, purchase Vista, install it, and reconfigure your reinstalled apps.
Double-standards are soooo awesome.
Microsoft is obviously trying to sell more software (what a shocking motivation behind a profit-driven corporation!
"The discussion is often phrased as one of balancing costs and timing of releases. By not deploying Windows Vista, it means missing out on the proven benefts such as better security, productivity, search, mobility, manageability, and infrastructure optimization. Windows Vista works with more applications and devices than ever before and can be significantly less expensive to support than Windows XP SP3."
All true points and a good discussion. Does this automatically mean you should jump Vista? No. Microsoft is making many resources available to individuals and businesses to help them understand the improvements between Vista and XP so they can make a well-informed decision about upgrading. When they say "there is no need to wait for Windows 7" they are simply trying to defeat the mis-informed consumer mindset that Vista should be skipped in favor of Windows 7.
All this article really says is that you can have many of the benefits of Windows 7 now in Windows Vista and should consider the improvements over Windows XP to make a well-informed upgrade decision.
Personally, I am not upgrading to Vista. But I didn't jump on the "anti-Vista" bandwagon, I made an informed decision. That's all Microsoft is really asking for.
Personally, i think that people/businesses that are thinking about upgrade should not ponder waiting to Windows 7, because we will be at square 1 when it comes out. Some people will face some issues, compatibilities here and there (hopefully less than when Vista came out) and overall, they will wait a little longer because of that.
The waiting time will be extended by this and by that time, they should be using Vista because XP won't have more updates or fixes coming.
I recommend Vista to average users and businesses, but in the end, it is personal preference.
If i had XP and where thinking on upgrading OS, will do it this year and not wait for Windows 7.
Microsoft is just telling you the very same thing.
Double-standards are soooo awesome.
Microsoft is obviously trying to sell more software (what a shocking motivation behind a profit-driven corporation!) But unlike Apple who takes the "I'm a Mac, let me insult your intelligence, PC User!" they at least take a mature approach to it.
"The discussion is often phrased as one of balancing costs and timing of releases. By not deploying Windows Vista, it means missing out on the proven benefts such as better security, productivity, search, mobility, manageability, and infrastructure optimization. Windows Vista works with more applications and devices than ever before and can be significantly less expensive to support than Windows XP SP3."
All true points and a good discussion. Does this automatically mean you should jump Vista? No. Microsoft is making many resources available to individuals and businesses to help them understand the improvements between Vista and XP so they can make a well-informed decision about upgrading. When they say "there is no need to wait for Windows 7" they are simply trying to defeat the mis-informed consumer mindset that Vista should be skipped in favor of Windows 7.
All this article really says is that you can have many of the benefits of Windows 7 now in Windows Vista and should consider the improvements over Windows XP to make a well-informed upgrade decision.
Personally, I am not upgrading to Vista. But I didn't jump on the "anti-Vista" bandwagon, I made an informed decision. That's all Microsoft is really asking for.
Totally agreed
Allow me to translate.
"Windows Vista works with more applications and devices than ever before and can be signifcantly less expensive to support than Windows XP SP3."
That translates as:
"Vista works with more applications and devices than it did at RTM and can be (as in, might or might not be) less expensive to support then Windows XP SP3."
"There is no need to wait for Windows 7. It is a goal of the Windows 7 release to minimize application compatibility for customers who have deployed Windows Vista since there was considerable kernel and device level innovation in Windows Vista. The Windows 7 release is expected to have only minor changes in these areas. Customers who are still using Windows XP when Windows 7 releases will have a similar application compatibility experience moving to Windows 7 as exists moving to Windows Vista from Windows XP."
That translates as:
"Microsoft would like to scare you into buying Vista now, by falsely suggesting that it will be harder to upgrade from XP to Windows 7 than from Vista to Windows 7."
"Historically, mainstream deployment occurs not when Microsoft releases a product but 18 months later. While the mainstream deployment cycle is beginning for Windows Vista now, it isn’t expected to begin for Windows 7 until at least mid-2011."
Translates as: "Wait until 2011 before you upgrade from Windows XP."
God sake neowin is an advertising platform now, it's so pathetic. Next you will see lameFone 3ghey adverts all over the site, abismul
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.