|
|
|
|
|
| |
Posted by The Real Andy on June 27, 2008, 6:10 am
Please log in for more thread options
On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:46:50 -0700, Joerg
>larwe wrote:
>>
>> Don McKenzie wrote:
>>
>>> Intel rejects Vista, will stay with XP and wait for windows7
>>
>> If you remember, pretty much exactly the same thing happened:
>>
>> - when Windows 95 replaced WFWG 3.11/MS-DOS 6.22 (but Intel eventually
>> upgraded)
>> - when Windows XP replaced Windows 2000 (but Intel eventually
>> upgraded)
>>
>> The real issue is how long mfrs continue to ship WinXP drivers for new
>> hardware. IT departments don't like to support multiple OSes, they
>> enjoy standardization. The last of the Win2000 machines are (by and
>> large) replaced with XP machines now, so most of the PCs in the
>> corporate world are standardized. Any Vista machines added to that mix
>> are shunned aliens at the moment, but that will likely not last. My
>> employer, like most, has a "universal" license where they tell MS how
>> many PCs they have, and they can install whatever flavor of Windows
>> they choose on each of those PCs, and certain components of MS-Office,
>> and various other software.
>>
>
>I went straight from DOS to NT, then XP. No Vista. Similar for some
>companies here.
I went from (asm and basic z80 etc excluded )
Dos -> Winows 3.11 -> OS2 -> Win 95 -> NT4 -> Linux (redhat) -> XP ->
Vista.
Being in enterprise, the XP era was also server Win2000 and 2003. I am
yet to use Win 2008.
I now use XP, Vista and linux. Which one depends on which client i am
working for which depends on which client pays the most. Currently it
is XP/2003 and has been for some time.
|
|
Posted by Paul Carpenter on June 26, 2008, 9:40 pm
Please log in for more thread options
In article <4dbf3da5-5826-4051-a48b-
31c8d46e0f53@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, zwsdotcom@gmail.com says...
>
>
> Don McKenzie wrote:
>
> > Intel rejects Vista, will stay with XP and wait for windows7
>
> If you remember, pretty much exactly the same thing happened:
>
> - when Windows 95 replaced WFWG 3.11/MS-DOS 6.22 (but Intel eventually
> upgraded)
> - when Windows XP replaced Windows 2000 (but Intel eventually
> upgraded)
>
> The real issue is how long mfrs continue to ship WinXP drivers for new
> hardware. IT departments don't like to support multiple OSes, they
> enjoy standardization. The last of the Win2000 machines are (by and
> large) replaced with XP machines now, so most of the PCs in the
> corporate world are standardized. Any Vista machines added to that mix
> are shunned aliens at the moment, but that will likely not last. My
> employer, like most, has a "universal" license where they tell MS how
> many PCs they have, and they can install whatever flavor of Windows
> they choose on each of those PCs, and certain components of MS-Office,
> and various other software.
I would not be so sure, there are plenty of apps still running on systems
older than that!
I know that only 2-3 years ago a bank upgraded servers from NT4 to 2003
server ONLY because they held reached the SAM based limits for
authentication (64k users).
I still go to places that are running all sorts of flavours of systems
and often see retail outlets with older systems than XP with DOS boxes
or special apps running.
I dread to think what the bill for the NHS in the UK would be as when XP
was only out a year or two they were upgrading to Windows 98. Bear in
mind the National Health Service is one of the largest employers in the
UK, in excess of 500,000 staff and contractors on site, a large portion
of which access computerised systems regularly.
Only about 3 months ago I saw my last customer Windows 95 being retired!
I have 1 customer running ME, only about 5 are running Vista on any
system, and that is usually a new laptop or single system.
For maintaining old projects I still have machines running NT4 and
WFW3.11 !
--
Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate
|
|
Posted by larwe on June 27, 2008, 2:16 am
Please log in for more thread options wrote:
> > hardware. IT departments don't like to support multiple OSes, they
> > enjoy standardization. The last of the Win2000 machines are (by and
> > large) replaced with XP machines now, so most of the PCs in the
> > corporate world are standardized. Any Vista machines added to that mix
>
> I would not be so sure, there are plenty of apps still running on systems
> older than that!
Certainly. People in this NG in particular will have numerous stories
of "the exception testing the rule". However for the bulk-purchased
office productivity machines (running MS-Office and little else) which
make up the lion's share of installs in a big organization like Intel,
the upgrade is centrally managed by IT, and IT won't standardize on
Vista until it's less effort than continuing to support XP. However,
once that day arrives, they /will/ upgrade.
For the moment, it's obvious that a Vista "upgrade" has nothing but
downsides even for people buying brand-new machines. At some point in
the future, possibly before the release of Windows 7, that might no
longer be true.
|
|
Posted by Paul Carpenter on June 27, 2008, 6:10 am
Please log in for more thread options In article <3ddc69c4-6bbe-4d24-adb0-
f090c51752bf@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, zwsdotcom@gmail.com says...
> wrote:
>=20
> > > hardware. IT departments don't like to support multiple OSes, they
> > > enjoy standardization. The last of the Win2000 machines are (by and
> > > large) replaced with XP machines now, so most of the PCs in the
> > > corporate world are standardized. Any Vista machines added to that mi=
x
> >
> > I would not be so sure, there are plenty of apps still running on syste=
ms
> > older than that!
>=20
> Certainly. People in this NG in particular will have numerous stories
> of "the exception testing the rule". However for the bulk-purchased
> office productivity machines (running MS-Office and little else) which
> make up the lion's share of installs in a big organization like Intel,
> the upgrade is centrally managed by IT, and IT won't standardize on
> Vista until it's less effort than continuing to support XP. However,
> once that day arrives, they /will/ upgrade.
The trouble is most senior managment view on computers in larger=20
organisations is the computers are just beige boxes and ALL beige boxes
are the same no matter how OLD. One manager said "These old systems=20
[Win 95] would run faster if we just installed the Win 2000 onto them".
Most IT departments I deal with (50 to 1000 machines[1]), actually run=20
planned upgrades and system images/build schemes (some even run thin=20
client some of those wrongly). The assets are managed so that each=20
machine is scheduled to be replaced somewhere between 3 to 5 years,=20
(some mainly govt installations tend to have longer or no replacement=20
poloicy), any new OS or major app has to be tested for
=09Interoperability with EXISTING applications
=09What applications/drivers/special hardware requirements
=09What lock downs and restrictions can be done, how, if at all.
=09Will it work in mixed version deployment
=09Will it integrate with ALL servers and network wide applications.
=09Can their existing system image/build/upgrade scheme still work.
=09Do we have remote office/links to deal with
=09What training requirements will there be.
As soon as you look at more than 100 systems, you generally have an IT=20
department that is somewhere around 1 IT staff member for at least 50=20
systems. Then you hit the issues of what can PHYSICALLY be done in moving=
=20
and installing hardware, then how long will it take to do the system=20
image rebuild for the systems (normally done over a network). Let alone=20
can all locations be updated at same time.
These upgrades are scheduled usually for nights/weekends to minimise=20
downtime, which brings time constraints as well. This then becomes
a transition phase of upgrading groups of systems at a time. Which is
also good practice to see what loading on deployment, normal usage,
even startup logon, authentication there is.
> For the moment, it's obvious that a Vista "upgrade" has nothing but
> downsides even for people buying brand-new machines. At some point in
> the future, possibly before the release of Windows 7, that might no
> longer be true.
=20
Interoperability especially during transition phases is the biggest pain
(especially on MS-Office apps being able to save as OLDER version by
default like Access nightmares).
Transition phases can sometimes be as long as 6 months depending on many
factors.
[1] In one case the IT department was run by my partner for a 250 machine
network (plus 6 servers) for a school with limited budgets, with=20
major differences of major groups and subnetworks of
=09students (potentially 100+ logon/logoff very fast every 45 minutes)
=09teachers
=09admin
=09fund raising and similar activities
Multiple school wide databases and similar apps.
Well familiar with their systems, as I was often involved in fixing
weird problems and setting up (and wiring up) anything up to 50=20
systems for new rooms/facilities.
--=20
Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate
|
|
Posted by The Real Andy on June 27, 2008, 6:17 am
Please log in for more thread options wrote:
>wrote:
>
>> > hardware. IT departments don't like to support multiple OSes, they
>> > enjoy standardization. The last of the Win2000 machines are (by and
>> > large) replaced with XP machines now, so most of the PCs in the
>> > corporate world are standardized. Any Vista machines added to that mix
>>
>> I would not be so sure, there are plenty of apps still running on systems
>> older than that!
>
>Certainly. People in this NG in particular will have numerous stories
>of "the exception testing the rule". However for the bulk-purchased
>office productivity machines (running MS-Office and little else) which
>make up the lion's share of installs in a big organization like Intel,
>the upgrade is centrally managed by IT, and IT won't standardize on
>Vista until it's less effort than continuing to support XP. However,
>once that day arrives, they /will/ upgrade.
>
>For the moment, it's obvious that a Vista "upgrade" has nothing but
>downsides even for people buying brand-new machines. At some point in
>the future, possibly before the release of Windows 7, that might no
>longer be true.
For a large enterprise, is there any need to upgrade to vista? Given
most enterprises are on a 3year+ refresh cycle, i think you will find
that only now are they starting to considering the upgrade. Same thing
occured with Win XP.
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | anyone used the CMUCAM with the Intel OpenCV library ? | December 18, 2005, 4:29 am |
| Re: Vista Defrag | September 16, 2007, 8:53 pm |
| Re: OT - Beware Windows Vista | September 17, 2007, 1:09 am |
| Re: OT - Beware Windows Vista | September 17, 2007, 2:12 am |
| Milton rejects guild from apparatus | August 19, 2007, 2:15 am |
| Ronette rejects dispute prior to column | August 19, 2007, 3:44 am |
| Try embodying the realm's broken disagreement and Moustapha will wait you! | November 18, 2007, 11:47 am |
| When will we bang after Otto rejects the indirect island's chicken? | December 23, 2007, 10:35 pm |
| Re: Artest wants to stay a king! | December 24, 2007, 2:48 pm |
| Let's encourage on the part of the spiritual neighbourhoods, but don't wait the occasional challenges. | December 1, 2007, 2:43 pm |
|
|
|
XML site map