Microsoft Australia installing new PC's just to run Vista

News poster Spy has had an interesting conversation with a Microsoft product support specialist in Australia over the phone. When asked whether the representative was using Windows Vista, the man surprisingly replied he wasn't. Possibly even more shocking is the reason. It seems the company is installing the Ultimate Edition of Microsoft's latest operating system the next day, as the new computers to run it have recently arrived. What kind of example is this setting for Microsoft's customers? "Don't bother with Vista unless you have, or are willing to purchase, a brand new computer." So much for the minimum requirements for Vista! Of course, it is Ultimate (what's wrong with Enterprise?) which is a bit more resource-intensive and it is entirely possible that the last PC upgrade was 5 years ago, when XP was released, meaning that an upgrade is simply the logical move.

News source: Bink

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

AMD Broadens Energy Efficient Processor Lineup

Next Story

Apple plugs eight QuickTime holes

27 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

<sarcasm>Wow! That's just the kinda news people want to read!</sarcasm>

Why is this crap being posted in main news?

Huh? Is the author sure he's not mixing up causality a bit here... Did they purchase new computers to run Vista, or as a regular hardware upgrade for performance reasons, and install Vista on them because there was little reason for them not to? We would also consider installing Vista on new computers here, but for that sake not purchase computers *to* run Vista. There's a very big difference here, and the latter being quite illogical.

FFS they probably haven't upgraded machines in 3 years.

Large corp's usually use a 3-5 year cycle. Some of our departments use a 2 year cycle due to complex apps.

This article is retarded.

I've worked with several Microsoft Australia staff and I think it's safe to say that their PCs are due for replacement... and I can't think of a better time for it.

what kind of a stupid article is this? i'm not even going to bother about explaining why i think it's stupid. Everyone with a brain can see it

You wouldn't want a Windows 3.1 system adopting a Windows Vista Ultimate!
Of course we need to upgrade. This is stupid!

If you want to 'future proof' your system, buy the best now, then you've got at least two generations of OS under yer belt.
Or you could just buy what's cheap and affordable now, then buy another round in five years or so.

i would only expect microsoft to have the latest computers at their companies around the world.

why would microsoft support team have crappy computers running vista? it doesn't make sense... people would just bash them for using outdated computers for such a high tech operating system.

Because it is not financially feasible to "have the latest computers at their companies around the world." This would require them to upgrade all of their systems every 8-12 months.

Yet another article to make those who don't want to upgrade to Vista feel good. We'll have to go through at least another 6 months of this. As I recall it was exactly the same with Windows XP... lots of people badmouthing it, lots of stupid stories like this one, until finally people actually just accepted that the future requires change.

And yet another rant from a fanboy that cannot accept Vista is not for everyone. The comparision between migrating from 98 to XP is a poor comparison. 98 was not as stable as XP among other differences, and if I recall there was not as much resistance with that upgrade as I'm seeing now. A new OS will be released in 3 years according to MS most will wait and upgrade then. I cannot count the calls I get to downgrade to XP on clients new Vista boxes. And finally as a guy working in IT most of my business accounts just moved to XP about a year or so ago and these are international organizations. So will see.............. I'm sure Vista will be fine when drivers get sorted out so no
need to beta test now. It would be prudent to wait until SP1 IMO.


Dennis

Firstly, explain to me how this article is anything but a sensationalist piece of garbage designed to suggest that Vista must have new hardware to run properly. That is garbage. I have a 2 year-old PC which runs Vista extremely well.

Secondly, the move from 98 to XP was identical in every respect. I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm in my 30s and I remember clearly the exact same stories, hype and hoo-hah over XP that Vista is getting. I recall the so-called professionals telling people that XP is nothing but a pretty version of Win98, that it's unstable, crap etc.

For the average consumer there is no rush to move to Vista, but by the same token there is also no reason to expect or believe that XP is currently secure enough or a good enough platform to continue for computing in the next three years. There is no guarantee MS will release a new OS in three years, as these things often blow out.

The reality is that once DX10 games come out, the usual whiners and anti-MS fanboys will quietly switch to Vista, and the hype and sensationalism over Vista will end as website find new things to draw in the lowest common denominator with.

7Dash8 said,
Firstly, explain to me how this article is anything but a sensationalist piece of garbage designed to suggest that Vista must have new hardware to run properly. That is garbage. I have a 2 year-old PC which runs Vista extremely well.

Secondly, the move from 98 to XP was identical in every respect. I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm in my 30s and I remember clearly the exact same stories, hype and hoo-hah over XP that Vista is getting. I recall the so-called professionals telling people that XP is nothing but a pretty version of Win98, that it's unstable, crap etc.

For the average consumer there is no rush to move to Vista, but by the same token there is also no reason to expect or believe that XP is currently secure enough or a good enough platform to continue for computing in the next three years. There is no guarantee MS will release a new OS in three years, as these things often blow out.

The reality is that once DX10 games come out, the usual whiners and anti-MS fanboys will quietly switch to Vista, and the hype and sensationalism over Vista will end as website find new things to draw in the lowest common denominator with.

matter fact I'm 24 now and I recall some the **** talking about xp back then... but there was huge different from 98 to xp don't deny that... but I have to say it I just don't feel the huge jump from xp to vista, I feel like vista just an updated os to catch up with the latest technology.. I have vista install on one of my extra hard drive I mess with it with once in while but I haven't switch completely I feel so comfortable with xp and xp works is 5 year we been sleeping with xp :P ... *sigh I honestly don't like vista at all but I will have to adopt or find different job. where I work I have to know latest ****

Yet another article to make those who don't want to upgrade to Vista feel good. We'll have to go through at least another 6 months of this. As I recall it was exactly the same with Windows XP... lots of people badmouthing it, lots of stupid stories like this one, until finally people actually just accepted that the future requires change.

Of course, it is Ultimate (what's wrong with Enterprise?)
They don't use Enterprise because Ultimate includes more features such as Media Center..etc. And being a product support specialise as the article mentioned - you need to have these features available when you want to provide support for users. So it makes perfect sense to install Ultimate instead of Enterprise.

No kidding. I have a 3Ghz, 512MB RAM, DX9 128Mb Card HTPC, and it lags so badly on Vista Premium, its not even funny. The only thing running is MCE and it still swaps like crazy all the time (slowing everything to a crawl). I don't want to invest in more memory to run 1 program, its ridiculous...

If that makes you less sad...
I have a Pentium D, 1GB RAM, geforce 6800... and... it... still... lags...
I'm hoping to buy +1GB of ram, and another 250GB disk (mine is full) to make RAID0 and get more speed while reading and writing disk

Hmmm I am not sure that I understand this...

I have a 2.2 GHZ AMD Athlon machine, 2 SATA HDs and 1 GB of RAM. Nothing lags, ever. GeForce 6800 LE with 128 MB of RAM. Running Media Center (Ultimate), got about 10,000 photos, close to 200 home short videos, tons of CDs riped to the HD, AV, I disabled no services. Office,, Indexing, MS Money, Sidebar, etc etc... Got about 60 processes running at any given time and yet it never lags, it's always snappy (except when both tuners are recording something at the same time and my XBOX 360 is connected to the machine to watch something else) - then here and there I get a stutter in UI logged onto the computer console.

So I guess it could be that 1GB of RAM that saves me but - I never noticed Vista being any slower than XP on this same machine. :nuts:

I have a 1.6GHz Celeron with 1.25 GB RAM (128 shared dedicated to the video). No problems with swapping.
Online with a PCMCIA CDMA/EVDO1a card, DX9 video (Radeon XPress 200M). Vista Ultimate, BTW. Office 2007, Sony Acid 6.0d. Never more than a 2 or 3 second lag (at worst). It seems like your (2 times) faster processor has... well... gone to lunch.

Seriously, what kind of article is this? It says that Microsoft shouldn't be upgrading it's hardware to run Vista as it sets a bad example.... then it says that they are going to get Ultimate and the computers they had may have been 5 years old and too old to run Vista.

It is contradicting and makes no sense. Let them upgrade their computers! You need to do it eventually, the world continues to evolve.

*pinches nose in frustration at sensationalist media*

In my experience with businesses and corporation workstations (especially in the Regional NSW), 60% only fully adopted Windows XP a year or 2 ago.

Rule of thumb in business: if it's not broke, don't fix it. Larger corporations purchased 200+ workstations from a vendor, had an OS preinstalled on them, roll out any software changes through the network environment, and will very rarely have to do anything related to an OS installation (especially since these corporations also use a base ghost image to roll out again in case of massive failure).

From a logistics point of view, there is NOTHING shocking or disturbing about this at all. Just as it wasn't shocking up to 2 years after XP's launch to still encounter Windows 2000 or even Windows 98 (sob) machines in businesses.

Without knowing how old the previous PC is this article is pretty stupid. I dont think its that negative image at all. Heaven forbid a company upgrade it's systems from time to time.

Exactly. It's been out just over a month, so it's hardly surprising that Microsoft hasn't fully deployed it yet. This article is so over the top, unhelpful and sensationalist it's untrue.

Haha! Does give out quite a negative message doesn't it? ;)
Personally I'm staying with good old XP for years to come, screw vista.

This is actually pretty dumb. If your department has been budgeted to have its computers replaced are you going to go install Vista on all of the old computers one month before hand??? No, of course not.

As for running Vista on older hardware, I am running it on a Dell GX260 with a 1.8GHz P4 and 786MB of RAM (about a 4 year old computer). No Areo, but it runs just fine; about as well as XP ran on that same system.