Windows Vista Thread, Vista: Is it here to stay? in Technical; Yeah the Office 2007 deployment is a shambles, was tried here and ended up running around fixing the mess it ...
18th April 2008, 02:43 PM #61
Yeah the Office 2007 deployment is a shambles, was tried here and ended up running around fixing the mess it made, as a result I now use SMS for all software deployments - don't trust GPOs now lol
The Vista deployment sounded good but from reading above seems like the plan didn't match the reality. There's also all the ideas of it pulling drivers, apps etc over onto a base image but it seems so awkward and fiddly that by the time you set it up you could've made the separate ones anyway :P
Also removing the AD integration from Exchange 2007 seems dumb to me, cba with 3 line long PowerShell commands gimme the GUI back
IDG Tech News
18th April 2008, 04:49 PM #62
"Also removing the AD integration from Exchange 2007"
Why have they don't that it sounds like a backwards step?
19th April 2008, 10:05 AM #63
Sounds like a great idea. Why should you need to potentially change the entire back end directory service of an organization just to install an email server!
Originally Posted by cookie_monster
Decoupling the two will open the market to organisations that don't use AD and keep regulators happy too.
19th April 2008, 10:44 AM #64
As Active Directory is built on the Exchange directory service it seemed an odd move, why not have an install option for different directory services. I haven't used Exchange since 5.5 so i'm not really sure of the impact i'm just surprised by the move.
19th April 2008, 03:18 PM #65
Its more an annoyance switching back and forth, unless you work the other way, if you add users on your Exchagne box it will also make then an AD account
21st April 2008, 04:29 PM #66
Well this guy thinks no to the 'Is it here to stay question', it's an interesting read.
Prediction: Microsoft will leapfrog Vista, release Windows 7 early, and change its OS business | Tech Sanity Check | TechRepublic.com
I was on the Microsoft campus in the fall of 2005, and I got a vibe from the Windows development team that really surprised me. They were not very happy with the direction of Longhorn or the team’s leadership. They seemed to think that it was time to blow up Windows and start over with something stronger and simpler.
Obviously, they didn’t get their wish. At the time, they probably didn’t realize that Jim Allchin would have preferred to do the same thing. Now, it’s very doubtful that they will get the opportunity to start from scratch with Windows 7, but at this point, I think it is very likely that they will get the opportunity to simplify and streamline Windows.
25th April 2008, 01:54 PM #67
Interestingly XP might go on for longer than was planned
4th May 2008, 01:22 AM #68
Frankly I think Vista is a great home/home office operating system. If you have a decent rig with plenty of RAM and decent graphics hardware.
For standard business machines the performance is noticeably worse than XP. For that reason alone I doubt it will take off in the business world, let alone education where we can't replace entire suites with top spec machines at the drop of a hat.
With XP Service Pack 3, extended support and the next version out by 2010 I think a lot of organisations will plan to leap frog Vista.
It is in my opinion not the new Windows ME as many commentators have said. It is a stable, rock solid OS, with the UI brought into line with Mac OS X. It just requires a big leap in hardware, perhaps more than Microsoft anticipated!
4th May 2008, 12:27 PM #69
One problem here is that loads of companies and schools had that plan for XP so they're still on 2K.
I think a lot of organisations will plan to leap frog Vista.
4th May 2008, 01:36 PM #70
Believe it or not, you CAN make a business case for Windows Vista | Decision Central | TechRepublic.com
check out this devils advocate argument for vista linked in cookies article....
it makes a lot of huge assumptions, and identifies those, so i don't want to give the author a total bashing...
but even in this hypothetical ideal IT environment the only case for vista is with the advanced features available with vista enteprise/SA. I tend to agree with that, but i would go so far as to say that some of the advanced features are irrelevant in an enteprrise setting.
The key question for IT depts. are;
will it run well on all our hardware, even our modest Pentium 4's with 1gb or RAM ?
What are the new deployment features/how easy is it to deoply ?
Will our applications run in the new OS.
What is network performance like ? What is the user experience for users when they're accessing network resources ?
question2.............cool new deployment features with enteprise/SA and in conjunctoin with win2k8. But we can use BDD with xp. hurrah. And anyway we're old hands with RIS/sysprep/Altiris/SMS/ and xp.
questoin4.............perofrmance sucks, and the user experience can best be described as confusing.
XP gui needed a design refresh....it's looking old in the tooth. But for business it's all about being familiar with somethign and being productive. Users hate change more than anything...a few bells and whistles aren't going to convince them - particulalry with the performance issues surorunding vista.
Plus he talks about companies moving wholesale to vista ??? Most large companies won't have the dual core, 2gb ram latest and greatest machines he's recommending throughout the org to do that.
If you'e a company with SA then the advanced features available with win2k8 and vista enteprise could be compelling, particularly if you've got the hardware. But Vista business is the replacement product in most instances for xp pro. The question is, if the hardware can run vista business what is the compelling deployment feature with vista business/win2k8 that isn't available with xp pro/win2k8.
I don't know enough about all the new stuff with vista deployment to answer that, but i don't believe there is anything that cant be done with xp clients.
4th May 2008, 03:01 PM #71
^ Totally agreed.
All MS needed to do in regards to deployment IMO is add Autoimage/nLite/RogueSpear/etc to the RIS "interface". I say interface but was there actually an interface? lol
For me RIS was great. I have two 1gb images which contained all the drivers for every PC in the school (2 because the new batch of PCs have sata HDs which didnt like the first image). Updates are handled by WSUS (although i could have used Autoimage to add them). Software is handled by GPO.
With all of the above i can have any PC in the school up and running in around an hour, alot less if they dont need Macromedia or the big multimedia science software. So thats dozens of differant combinations of hardware and software all handled by 2gb of images as opposed to several hundred gig of images if i were to do it the a-la-ghost way.
Oh and why the hell did MS have to make SP2 for server 2003 kill RIS? I forgot all about it and blindly installed SP2 on our RIS server (yeah probably my own fault) but hell, why break something which was working just fine in the first place!
5th May 2008, 10:28 PM #72
I wasn't aware that it broke RIS it just upgrades it to WDS.
6th May 2008, 02:04 PM #73
Im not sure what you have got to do to make it work again, maybe just add the Vista Boot image, but it certainly doesnt "just work"
Originally Posted by cookie_monster
6th May 2008, 02:08 PM #74
Yes you're right you do have to alter a setting after the install, i needed to change the x86 boot loader to OSChooser\i386\startrom.com in the WDS console.
By Mr_Jones in forum Windows Vista
Last Post: 11th June 2008, 01:53 PM
By alan-d in forum Virtual Learning Platforms
Last Post: 9th March 2007, 12:27 PM
By alonebfg in forum Windows Vista
Last Post: 20th February 2007, 01:22 AM
By indiegirl in forum Windows
Last Post: 28th September 2006, 05:29 PM
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)