Closing the Door to Microsoft Vista

[1759]

I can't think of many good reasons for companies to rush out, and install the lastest version of any OS - stability should be key, and XP is proven; not things like transparent Menu bars or Tasktray/Aero. Also, Vista does seem to pretty much require 2GB+ and a dual-core for good performance, and I doubt most office machines will meet that.

A lot of companies I've worked with, skipped 2k, and went from NT4 to XP, I don't find it that uncommon, so I'm not surprised GM would do this.

[rbanksy]

Same old boring storey.

People said the same thing when XP came out, XP was hated. Now that it is a mature operating system, people are loving it.

The same thing will happen to Vista, it will mature after 2 or 3 service packs.

They will not exactly migrate to Windows 7 as soon as it comes out,. It will be buggy like any new operating system to start off with. At this point they will go over to Vista.

[DrewJW]

Same old boring storey.

People said the same thing when XP came out, XP was hated. Now that it is a mature operating system, people are loving it.

The same thing will happen to Vista, it will mature after 2 or 3 service packs.

They will not exactly migrate to Windows 7 as soon as it comes out,. It will be buggy like any new operating system to start off with. At this point they will go over to Vista.

A well used speech but this time it is not true, the majority of computers today though struggle on Vista, and alot of them suffer from terrible driver support still in some areas, also Vista GUI is very different to XP, coupled with others niggles and admittedly poor shockingly poor optimized core which seems to lag down for no reason at times equals an operating system which more to work out of itself than XP ever had to.

[maplecookie Veteran]

am i the only person that likes vista because i find that on my low end laptop runs vista fine

Stats:

Acer Aspire 5100

Amd Turion 64 @ 2.00Ghz

Crucial Ram : 2x 1Gb @ 667 Mhz

Vista Ultimate SP1 32Bit

I've got a laptop WAY worse than what you think is low end, lol and Vista works fine. I love it and can't figure out why people don't like it to be honest.

It's bogged down for techies, like most of the people on Neowin. But it's a great OS for a family or even a small company.

[wellofsouls]

I bet you Toyota and Handa have Vista on their machines :p

I bet you they have Windows 2000 on their machines :p

It's business, and those companies won't upgrade as long as the system is still working fine for them. Plenty of people in my company are still running Pentium III with 256M RAM, and it's supposed to be an IT company. :laugh:

am i the only person that likes vista because i find that on my low end laptop runs vista fine

Stats:

Acer Aspire 5100

Amd Turion 64 @ 2.00Ghz

Crucial Ram : 2x 1Gb @ 667 Mhz

Vista Ultimate SP1 32Bit

you call that low end? my Thinkpad T43 with 1G RAM is actually one of the "higher-end" notebooks in my company, the guy next to me is using a T41 with 512M RAM.

well, Vista did install and run on my T43, but it's definitely not running well...

[macf13nd]

I've got a laptop WAY worse than what you think is low end, lol and Vista works fine. I love it and can't figure out why people don't like it to be honest.

It's bogged down for techies, like most of the people on Neowin. But it's a great OS for a family or even a small company.

yep. a laptop with 2 x 1 gb is hardly low end! :)

[anonymous_user]

am i the only person that likes vista because i find that on my low end laptop runs vista fine

Stats:

Acer Aspire 5100

Amd Turion 64 @ 2.00Ghz

Crucial Ram : 2x 1Gb @ 667 Mhz

Vista Ultimate SP1 32Bit

Thats an unusual definition of low-end. My computers must be crap then...

[Kushan]

2Gb sounds like a lot these days, but have you actually priced laptops lately? Prices of RAM, especially laptop RAM, has went down a lot, 2Gb is about the average you get, with a lot of the mainstream priced lappys giving you 4Gb.

I still agree his laptop is hardly "low end" but it's not that far off considering what your money gets you today.

[ctebah]

They are NOT failing to upgrade because (waaaaaah wah wah) Vi$ta Fails..!11oneone <insert current forum trend word here>. They just aren't upgrading because at this moment in time, financially and practically, to upgrade would be pointless.

:cool:

The automaker has encountered so many speed bumps getting Vista to work on its machines that it may just wait for the next version of Windows

Vista taxes all but the most modern PCs with hefty processing and memory requirements. Many of GM's PCs can't even run the system.

Then there are compatibility problems with all the software that needs to run on Windows. GM's software vendors still haven't ensured all their programs will run on Vista trouble-free.

From these quotes it looks like GM isn't upgrading because vista fails and not all of their software will run on it.

[Eisbaer]

Sure, GM might have a bad IT department, I could not comment on that any further because I do not know that to be a fact. What I can say though is that in the medical field, many medical records and practice/patient management software systems are not Vista-ready at this point in time, and from various vendors I am being informed that their software will not be ready for Vista before Windows 7 is scheduled to be released at this particular time.

From an economical standpoint, I can definitely see why the automobile industry might not want to upgrade to Vista these days. Whether Vista is working for them to run the software they need or not ... currently it is just not looking to well for finance-intensive upgrades in that market.

Just my 2 cents ...

[rimvyd]

Same old boring storey.

People said the same thing when XP came out, XP was hated. Now that it is a mature operating system, people are loving it.

The same thing will happen to Vista, it will mature after 2 or 3 service packs.

They will not exactly migrate to Windows 7 as soon as it comes out,. It will be buggy like any new operating system to start off with. At this point they will go over to Vista.

Well said. However, people hated XP SP0 and really liked sp1, that isn't case with Vista Sp1. Maybe sp2 or sp3 will bring something worth to upgrade.

[alsheron]

Hold on there, he has a point. It can still be a failure, even if the software works well. Amiga OS worked really, really well, however it too was an epic failure.

Content may be king, but adoption rates pay the king's salary. And in that way, Vista is failing.

-Ax

Um, NO. Look up the adoption figures and you'll realise that actually its doing extremely well. All this talk of low sales is truthfully just FUD.

[PGHammer]

Vista is Microsoft's epic fail.

Not an *epic fail*; however, it IS a fail compared to the usual upgrade path.

However, two of the reason why it's a fail aren't anything it had control over.

1. The tanking economy. Business purchasing (especially new IT hardware) is down, and down large. There is close to no hardware turnover, and most businesses won't upgrade operating systems on old hardware.

2. Laggard third-party developers, especially in line-of-business applications. Development of client-side software that is Vista-ready for line-of-business applications has also lagged (partly due to reason #1, the tanking economy, and partly due to other issues taking precedent at some of these concerns, such as the BEA/Oracle dance). If your major application isn't ready, the odds are high you won't move. (In late 2000, Comcast saw its own companywide migration to Windows 2000 Professional from NT 4 held up because a single major line-of-business application wasn't ready for Windows 2000 Professional, despite the OS itself having shipped over a year previous; this actually held up the migration for four months.)

Let's be realistic, here; system prices overall are down (and performance for price is up) starting a year prior to Vista's launch, and the trend has continued since. A quad-core system that was over $2,000US (quantity one) a mere eighteen months ago is under $1000US (still quantity one) today, and that includes the top-end version of Vista (Ultimate x64 no less). Those aren't sale prices; those are, in fact, everyday prices at a major big-box retailer (business pays even less due to bulk-buying). Now, Vista is big; much bigger than Windows XP (in terms of sheer code size). However, despite the sheer volume of code, the typical new system of today handles all that weight easily, with room to spare. (A good reason for this is that you have fewer sub-equipped desktops being sold to business today; as opposed to desktops with 512 and 256 MB of RAM, 1 GB is the new standard loadout for a corporate desktop). Upgrading all those older desktops to handle Vista takes tons of time and serious money; it's too easy simply to replace the systems, as opposed to upgrading them. (The two most critical upgrades are going to be system memory and hard drive space, with memory being the most important. Memory pricing, however, has taken a strange turn, with DDR2 being cheaper than the older DDR memory the older systems need. Throw that price paradigm over several hundred PCs, and the thinking becomes replace, not upgrade, quickly.)

[PGHammer]

2Gb sounds like a lot these days, but have you actually priced laptops lately? Prices of RAM, especially laptop RAM, has went down a lot, 2Gb is about the average you get, with a lot of the mainstream priced lappys giving you 4Gb.

I still agree his laptop is hardly "low end" but it's not that far off considering what your money gets you today.

Laptops, notebooks, and desktops all are including out-sized RAM loadouts these days. In fact, let's look at the $1000US retail desktop at the big-box retailers: 3 GB of RAM is the overwhelming standard, and those that don't have 3 GB have 4 GB instead. The CPU? No Celerons (even dual-core Celerons) here; in fact, very few dual-core CPUs, for that matter. The standard at this price-point is quad-core (and Intel quad-core, at that). In short, the standard is the King of Processor Overkill. Businesses aren't paying $1000US for these dasktops; they are paying less (usually quite a bit less); however, they won't buy them if they don't have the money to buy or their critical applications aren't ready (and all too often it's both).

[PGHammer]

I do work at a GM dealership. The accounting/inventory software we have to use looks like something from the 80's with a modern frontend on it. In fact I use the "'80's" desktop instead of the new one because it is much faster. This software is not Vista compatible so we have to stick to XP. Because it is web-based, we cannot even update certain things like Java and such because it will break the program. Everybody hates it and we still have 3 years left on our contract.

The SysAdmin would love to go to Vista. He would set up everyone as a standard user which would eliminate a lot of headaches he has to deal with (such as malware).

That's pretty commonplace. Also, consider telecommuters. (More and more of those these days, with the higher cost of fuel.) They are using VPN software to connect back to the *home office*, and all too much of it isn't ready for Vista, either (that is indeed the issue with Cisco's VPN software and the client-side app for PeopleSoft/HR). You won't upgrade if your major applications aren't ready.

The company is basically held hostage by their software.

[Kushan]

Yes, this is the real reason why Vista isn't an upgrade option. It's not a fault of the OS, it's a fault of the company's own software and more often than not, it's better just sticking with it.

It may suck, but it works and that's all that matters. Upgrading it costs time and money, plus will invariably cause problems as staff are retrained and bugs are found. I mean, how often have you heard about a company having serious problems because of rolling out a new software upgrade?

[wellofsouls]

Yes, this is the real reason why Vista isn't an upgrade option. It's not a fault of the OS, it's a fault of the company's own software and more often than not, it's better just sticking with it.

It depends, for Microsoft, maybe the company's own software incompatible to Vista is at fault. But for the company, a software that served it well for years (and is continuing to do so for the forseeable future) is definitely not at fault.

If you ask me, it's the fault of Capitalism :p

2Gb sounds like a lot these days, but have you actually priced laptops lately? Prices of RAM, especially laptop RAM, has went down a lot, 2Gb is about the average you get, with a lot of the mainstream priced lappys giving you 4Gb.

I still agree his laptop is hardly "low end" but it's not that far off considering what your money gets you today.

I wonder what you consider as "mainstream" price? IMHO, "mainstream" price should be at least less than US$1000. Also 4GB RAM is the TOP of current line of laptops, I don't know any laptop with 6G or 8G RAM, not even those monstrous DTRs :huh:

Well said. However, people hated XP SP0 and really liked sp1, that isn't case with Vista Sp1. Maybe sp2 or sp3 will bring something worth to upgrade.

well, apparently people hated XP SP0 less than Vista SP0, that's why XP had a much higher adoption rate than Vista after the same time of release.

Um, NO. Look up the adoption figures and you'll realise that actually its doing extremely well. All this talk of low sales is truthfully just FUD.

Umm, maybe you should look up the adoption figures yourself. XP had an adoption rate of 36% after its first year, while Vista has an adoption rate of 14% after its first year. I don't think that looks anywhere near "doing extremely well".

Sure, GM might have a bad IT department, I could not comment on that any further because I do not know that to be a fact. What I can say though is that in the medical field, many medical records and practice/patient management software systems are not Vista-ready at this point in time, and from various vendors I am being informed that their software will not be ready for Vista before Windows 7 is scheduled to be released at this particular time.

From an economical standpoint, I can definitely see why the automobile industry might not want to upgrade to Vista these days. Whether Vista is working for them to run the software they need or not ... currently it is just not looking to well for finance-intensive upgrades in that market.

Just my 2 cents ...

Indeed. AFAIK, the only companies that provide their employee with somewhat up-to-date computers are those computer manufacturers like HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc. All other companies just try to make use of their existing hardware and software as much as possible.

But then, I have just been to Microsoft's regional headquarters here last week for a project, and they are using AthlonX2 4200+ with 1G RAM and integrated graphics chip, AND running Windows XP. I guess if a lot of the Microsoft guys themselves are still not upgraded to Vista after one and a half years of its release, it's kinda hard for them to convince anyone else to the upgrade... :laugh:

[Kushan]

I wonder what you consider as "mainstream" price? IMHO, "mainstream" price should be at least less than US$1000. Also 4GB RAM is the TOP of current line of laptops, I don't know any laptop with 6G or 8G RAM, not even those monstrous DTRs :huh:

Quotes for 1GB DRAM modules have fallen to US$16 in the second half of December while prices for two 2GB modules are likely to drop to less than US$60 in the first quarter of 2008. Based on this scenario, the cost for 4GB RAM will account for less than 6% of a US$1,000-cost notebook. This is much lower than the 10% of the overall system cost as seen in the past, memory makers added.

Source: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20071220PD212.html

Do the math, if they spend 10% of the laptop's cost on RAM, then 2Gb works out at about $32. Say $40 just for argument's sake, that still falls nicely in line with a $400 laptop.

[wellofsouls]

Source: http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20071220PD212.html

Do the math, if they spend 10% of the laptop's cost on RAM, then 2Gb works out at about $32. Say $40 just for argument's sake, that still falls nicely in line with a $400 laptop.

LOL, then please find a $400 laptop with 4G RAM for me, I'll pay you $800 for it.

By your "math", there should be 8G RAM laptops at $1000. Obviously your "math" is way off of reality.

I don't care about your "math", I only care about FACTS, and these are FACTS :

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping...=V6700TX_series

http://www.gateway.com/systems/product/529668032.php

heck, the CHEAPEST laptop I can find around here is $400 with 512M RAM, and that's from some cheapo Chinese brand called Hasee.

with a lot of the mainstream priced lappys giving you 4Gb.

I thought you were talking about real-world laptop markets, guess I was wrong, since obviously you were talking about some non-existent $400 laptop with 4GB RAM out of your "math" hallucination. :rolleyes:

In reality, there is no "if" or "math", there's only hard facts. The cheapest laptop with 4GB RAM AFAIK is priced at around $1200 from some cheapo Chinese brand, and that is still quite above "mainstream price".

Edited May 17, 2008 by wellofsouls

[Kushan]

Uhh...did you even read what I said? I said 2Gb for a $400 laptop isn't inconceivable, not 4Gb. Show me where I said 4Gb, please.

And there's a very good reason you don't see many laptops with 6 or 8Gb of RAM - the bloody OS can't support it! Sure, you can get 64bit OS's, but why bother dealing with all the potential technical problems of incompatibilities with software and drivers when you can just give the customer a 32bit OS and spend the money on a built-in webcam or better graphics card or, better yet, profit?

I just had a look on Dell's website and the first laptop I seen was priced at $500 and had 2Gb of RAM, so I'm not exactly far off, am I?

Look harder next time. And pay more attention, too.

[Victor V.]

I feel the need to remind people that they're forgetting that windows 7 will be a MINOR upgrade to windows vista....... so if they think they're gonna get something MUCH different from Vista, they've got another thing coming :p

Oh man S**U, please... don't make me wanna cry...

IF IT'S A FREAKING MINOR UPDATE, WHY THE HELL IS IT A NEW VERSION? (6.0 -> 7.0) IT IS NOT A NEW BUILD, NOT A NEW MILESTONE, NOT A NEW CRAP, NOT A NEW SVN OR WHATEVER, IT'S A NEW VERSION!

Thanks for reaching my point and understanding my anger.

[wellofsouls]

Uhh...did you even read what I said? I said 2Gb for a $400 laptop isn't inconceivable, not 4Gb. Show me where I said 4Gb, please.

And there's a very good reason you don't see many laptops with 6 or 8Gb of RAM - the bloody OS can't support it! Sure, you can get 64bit OS's, but why bother dealing with all the potential technical problems of incompatibilities with software and drivers when you can just give the customer a 32bit OS and spend the money on a built-in webcam or better graphics card or, better yet, profit?

I just had a look on Dell's website and the first laptop I seen was priced at $500 and had 2Gb of RAM, so I'm not exactly far off, am I?

Look harder next time. And pay more attention, too.

Huh? where did I say 2GB? THIS is what my reply to you is about, and where you said 4Gb

with a lot of the mainstream priced lappys giving you 4Gb.

I'm telling you there's no "mainstream lappy" giving you 4Gb. I didn't say anything about 2Gb at all, I'm just talking about your hallucinated "mainstream priced" 4Gb lappy :rolleyes:

I'm quite fine, it's you who should look harder next time, and pay more attention, and try look at what you yourself have written, and learn to count :laugh:

Edited May 17, 2008 by wellofsouls

[Kushan]

Huh? where did I say 2GB? THIS is what my reply to you is about, and what you said 4Gb

I'm telling you there's no "mainstream lappy" giving you 4Gb. I didn't say anything about 2Gb at all, I'm just talking about your hallucinated "mainstream priced" 4Gb lappy :rolleyes:

I'm quite fine, it's you who should look harder next time, and pay more attention, and try look at what you yourself have written, and learn to count :laugh:

I KNOW you didn't say anything about 2Gb, that's what I'm correcting you about.

You said, and I quote:

LOL, then please find a $400 laptop with 4G RAM for me, I'll pay you $800 for it.

Where did I say you'd get 4Gb in a $400 laptop? Where? Come on, don't hold back now, show me where I said you'd get 4Gb of RAM in a $400 laptop.

If you're referring to me saying that you get 4Gb in a MAINSTREAM laptop, then you're mistaken about what a "mainstream" laptop actually is.

$400 isn't "mainstream", mainstream is around the $1000 mark. $400 is budget, $1500-2000+ is high-end.

Not believe me? Google "mainstream laptop" and see what prices come up.

[wellofsouls]

And there's a very good reason you don't see many laptops with 6 or 8Gb of RAM - the bloody OS can't support it! Sure, you can get 64bit OS's, but why bother dealing with all the potential technical problems of incompatibilities with software and drivers when you can just give the customer a 32bit OS and spend the money on a built-in webcam or better graphics card or, better yet, profit?

LOL, that's not a good reason, or more precisely, not a valid reason at all. By your reasoning, there shouldn't be any desktop with 8G RAM neither, which is not true. Also those laptops with 4G RAM are already mostly DTR MONSTERS that come with 64-bit Vista and target enthusiasts only, they are the TOP of the TOP, they won't be concerned with 32-bit OS compatibility. There may be lots of reasons why the current laptop manufacturers stops at 4G instead of 6G or 8G, but the 32-bit OS support thing is definitely NOT one of them. Profit is also not a problem, since the 4G RAM laptops are already highest-end for enthusiasts, so they can price the laptops over the Heavens and there still gonna be enthusiasts buying them.

The thing is, you won't get a mainstream priced laptop with 4G RAM. And currently those laptops with 4G RAM are already the TOP, so 2GB is FAR from low-end.

[sathenzar]

funny thing is none of my friends have one problem with Vista, nor have I, since RTM. People don't give Vista enough credit. It has come a long way since Beta 1. People just don't like change and although not everyone is like this it seems most are too stubborn to just take a good look at something, they just would rather go with the crowd and say oh yeah it sucks it has sooo many problems. Then...you have not used a Vista operating system for very long then, or you're too incompetent to run a computer.