Training staff costs, support calls, pricier hardware reqs, seriously it's a financial burden switching to Vista or any new software that does many things differently to the last program. That's why businesses are not doing it. If they wanted Vista to be easy for businesses then they only needed a "look and behave like XP" interface option, QED.
There is no need for "Premium Content" playback in the corporate environment. Why does the windows need embedded DRM and protected processes? What are all of those protected processes doing on these computers. Since I cannot attach a debugger to them to examine them, I have to trust MS that they are OK? I think not. I'll stick with an OS that is not a media player that runs windows programs.
People to this day fail to realize XP was not "embraced" by corporate until SP2 2.5 years after its initial release. Futher into it XP did not overtake 2000 until 4 years into its cycle.
People dont believe me, research this.
And the Journalist writing this piece, stop with the sensationalist banter. Report dont make the news.
IMO Vista is great. Does anyone remember the compatibility, etc. problems faced when they first released XP? It was only after SP2 that XP became what it is. If you consider that, Vista has done really well. SP1 fixes most of the problems it initially had.
hi
anxiously waiting for a inq article that focusses on ubuntu / leopard / suse ... etc. count the no.of updates and upgrades given by non-windows platforms before commenting badly about windows.
I still see companies I do maintenance for still have setups like 2.6 Celeron / 256 RAM or 2.8 P4 with 256 or 512 RAM, needless to say most of them are using the mighty Intel IGP. In fact they ask me to install VISTA for them :D Even with RAM upgrade my answer would still NO.
You need the next "service pack" to make it work... yeah right! Come on people, smell the coffee... dump the windoze. Get Ubuntu!
Training staff costs, support calls, pricier hardware reqs, seriously it's a financial burden switching to Vista or any new software that does many things differently to the last program. That's why businesses are not doing it. If they wanted Vista to be easy for businesses then they only needed a "look and behave like XP" interface option, QED.
There is no need for "Premium Content" playback in the corporate environment. Why does the windows need embedded DRM and protected processes? What are all of those protected processes doing on these computers. Since I cannot attach a debugger to them to examine them, I have to trust MS that they are OK? I think not. I'll stick with an OS that is not a media player that runs windows programs.
People to this day fail to realize XP was not "embraced" by corporate until SP2 2.5 years after its initial release. Futher into it XP did not overtake 2000 until 4 years into its cycle.
People dont believe me, research this.
And the Journalist writing this piece, stop with the sensationalist banter. Report dont make the news.
IMO Vista is great. Does anyone remember the compatibility, etc. problems faced when they first released XP? It was only after SP2 that XP became what it is. If you consider that, Vista has done really well. SP1 fixes most of the problems it initially had.
... Vista "is finally shaping out to be the operating system that dethrones Windows XP," ...
Lalala, say hi to Alice from me ok? She's right behind the big oak tree, just go straight ahead.
did u check out win 7? i think most corporates will migrate straight to it.
hi
anxiously waiting for a inq article that focusses on ubuntu / leopard / suse ... etc. count the no.of updates and upgrades given by non-windows platforms before commenting badly about windows.
I still see companies I do maintenance for still have setups like 2.6 Celeron / 256 RAM or 2.8 P4 with 256 or 512 RAM, needless to say most of them are using the mighty Intel IGP. In fact they ask me to install VISTA for them :D Even with RAM upgrade my answer would still NO.