Vista may not be a need at all...
Vista may not be a need at all...
Your right it can't use 4GB, all SP1 does for 32 bit is display that your system has 4GB installed (think tech support taking calls like "I bought a computer with 4GB in but its only showing 3Gb where is the rest of my ram? please explain) it will not use all of that installed ram. You really need a 64 bit OS and 64 bit apps.Quote:
Originally Posted by FN-Greatermanchester
In Vista SP1 you can go upto 4GB
Yes. But the 32 bit version can only use 3.5 Gb!.. Unless you know something I don't?
We will all have to learn it and live with it. As i've mentioned previously windows 7 is going to be very similar nay identical to Vista look and feel wise, so learning Vista now is not like learning ME....that familiarity with Vista will be very important as orgs slowly but surely move away onto either Windows 7/Vista.
I find the whole 'why did they move it from there' or other gui moans that are predominantly a diskile or uneasiness with change. It throws us out of our comfort zone...but we're not end users or cobol developers, we should expect that actually from time to time things change and software makers do move things around in new versions of a product. We may question the need but it's not the end of the world....the other things about Vista re the performance and hardware requirements will be less of an issue over the next 18 months as hardware refreshes and disposal of old kit cycles mean that most desktops are more suitable for Vista and no doubt microsoft will release further updates based on customer feedback.
My advice is get Vista business or enterprise, use it, familiarise, deploy and learn the intricacies of deployment and vista specific GPO's so that you can support it. Since when is liking or disliking an OS important....none of us like XP, but it's familiar and we're used to it. Vista or Windows 7 will assume that role the next time we get new machines.
My only issue, or one of my issues is Vista on subnotebooks like those based on Atom. I know Vista is built on this modularity that has allowed a plethora of different versions for the desktop....wonder if they can use this modular nature to tailor a version for Atom Notebooks and intel ULV notebooks, if indeed that is necessary - the whole flash disk or readyboost crap won't speed up bootup as much as an OS with a smaller footprint and fewer dependancies.
The problem is there is not going to be any getting away from it any time soon, even if there were say a mass defection to another os it most certainly wouldn't happen overnight.
Yes I agree MS seem to want to push everybody to the new os platform but are somewhat stuck with lower power hardware and with such a good take up on netbooks they need to look at it seriously, maybe a Vista slim edition or Vista XP editionMy only issue, or one of my issues is Vista on subnotebooks like those based on Atom.
Of the machines that account for that 8.5% market share, however million that is, i bet a high proportion are also running XP or Vista. The mac is alternative from a hardware point of view, but is OSX really an alternative for education and business outside of it's traditional niche uses. One things for sure, OSX and ubuntu are more feasible because they're being developed to play ball in a world dominated by microsoft server apps.... Exchange, SMB/CIFS, Active Directory etc. all mean that Apple have to make that effort to allow OSX users and IT depts. to connect with their microsoft back office. So yes OSX and ubuntu are options, but if in business their primary goal is to ensure users can connect to microsoft servers why not just connect Microsoft with Microsoft. Nice and easy, well documented, easier to support. I personally think that is still the prevailing thinking.
Microsoft's monopoly on the desktop OS space still rules supreme - it's irrelevant to an extent that ubuntu/kubuntu/edubuntu has become more user fiendly or is better engineered, or more secure....IT depts. will not necessarily value those criteria as highly when they are looking at a desktop OS and associated apps to deploy and support.
That could all change, if as expected, we move to a web browser centric user experience. But the big spanner in the works is office - love it or loath it - excel, powerpoint and word are too deeply entrenched amongst the user base.
I guess what i'm saying is that the only way i imagine that Vista won't be needed is we all sign up to something VMwares VDI or a hyrid thin-client/app streaming approach where the servers provision and stream the apps based on what the user needs to work with. Then the underlying OS becomes irrelevant as the users documents are in the intranet portal (MOSS) and their apps are delivered on demand whether they be a windows app or a linux app or an open source app on windows.
But it's not going to happen becuase linux is a better alternative, it'll be becuase the idea of app streaming/thin client computing is a better alternative. For as long as business need fat clients Windows is always going to be the dominant desktop choice...irrespective of the problems with Vista. That's what monopolies are about - it doesn't matter that the lastest version is not up to scratch, the reality for most is that there is no practical alternative. Or should i say, there are no alternatives worth pursuing...that's the important distinciton. Can i get off my fat arse and investigate, trial, deploy a non-windows desktop throughout an org....or should i just wait for the next hardware refresh and deploy Vista. The latter is less of an unknown quantity.
Last edited by torledo; 26th July 2008 at 11:56 AM.
What are you basing that on though? Businesses aren't simply turning to vista and saying, 'yep that'll do'. The cost of redevleoping applications for Vista is almost as high as redeveloping them to run on any other OS.
Sure, people like to use what they know, but things like the major interface change to Office and the new interface in vista make it more difficult. Every upgrade of Windows in the past, since windows 95, has used the same style of interface, the same way of laying out and naming the control panel etc... This major change has sent a lot of organisations reeling.
Microsoft's sales of Vista have not been as high as they had expected, and they have admitted this. At the same time, increased sales of competitor products, increased interest in open source products etc... They all point to one thing - businesses are not just going down the Microsoft route as before. They are realising that the constant cycle of upgrades is costing them more in the long run than switching to a system which doesn't have the enforced upgrade cycle.
Also, Office might at this moment be the most popular office solution choice, but it hasn't always been that way. Lotus 123 was massive in the past, as was WordPerfect. These things change, and it appears that they are changing at the moment.
Vista is not just a simple upgrade. It is a massive change, and that is what is making everyone look elsewhere.
Microsoft are going to find that they need to incentivise organisations more to upgrade - this is where you'll find many features will be provided free or bundled with a windows license whereas previously they were an additional cost option. Large education and corporate windows customers have huge leverage with Microsoft, they can negotiate significant discount on licensing and training and Microsoft will oblige if it means retaining their foothold in that org.
I don't believe companies are saying 'that'll do' when it comes to Vista. Large risk averse orgs are sticking with 2000 or XP - and they are making their feeling known, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily embracing linux or open source apps throughout an org....because that in itself brings a risk. At the moment they might for instance choose to stick with say office 2003 or office XP over office 2007 rather than choose to deploy and support openoffice. They might run both OOo and office side by side but get little take up with OOo. With the opeating system if and when an upgrade is required, Microsoft will no doubt incentivise them to upgrade to their latest version.
Every new UI or app upgrade from microsoft gives open source apps an opportunity to be embraced, but i would say the TCO and the training and support that can be delivered to the userbase is the most important consideration.
I'm also not sure about increased sales of competitor products is as important as market share...Apple may be gaining market share quite substantially with computer sales...but are microsoft actually losing market share in the Desktop space or the productivity space ?
If they are who are they losing market share to ? When it comes to end user productivity microsoft have such a broad portfolio of products in office, it's hard for commercial companies to compete.
Think about office 2007, it covers products for so many different roles...admin staff have word and excel, business analysts have excel, project managers have project and powepoint, technical folks have visio...
collaboration capability is there also.
Other commercial competitors are looking at gaining the lead in more specific applications...Adobe for example. And then you have accounting packages from the likes of Sage, SAP - but microsoft compete there also and are targeting SMB's who feel more comfortable with the Microsoft brand.
I'm not saying openoffice, firefox, jabber IM etc. or an open source accouting package can't fill a role in an org. In many cases they do and do it very well. And i for one am glad that we have alternatives to microsoft....but i seriously think that from an OS point of view, even if companies baulk at implementing Vista - they'll stick with XP until they have to move to vista but competition has little to do affecting that decision...that's more about pressures on IT spend, that will continue to be the case until more server-centric computing takes hold.
If someone in the leadership team makes the decision to migrate to vista they will have to factor in the cost of re-training the technicians with vendor specific training. I'm not going out of my way to learn this piece of crap when I've already got a better desktop system (linux) that I'm familiar with. I'll happily support any old rubbish that SMT decide they want, as long as they can afford the training and the new machines.most of our staff are going to end up with it, so we are going to have to learn it. and then its only a matter of time before we end up with it on our desktops...
localzuk (26th July 2008)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)