Print 99 comment(s) - last by Dfere.. on May 29 at 8:50 AM

The Army has decided to upgrade all of its computers, like those shown here (at the NCO Academy's Warrior Leaders Course) to Windows Vista. It says the adoption will increase its security and improve standardization. It also plans to upgrade from Office 2003 to Office 2007. As many soldiers have never used Vista or Office '07, it will be providing special training to bring them up to speed.  (Source: U.S. Army)
Army will upgrade all its computers to Vista by December

For those critics who bill Microsoft's Windows Vista a commercial failure for failing to surpass Windows XP in sales, and inability to capitalize in the netbook market, perhaps they should reserve judgment a bit longer.  Just as Windows 7 hype is reaching full swing in preparation for a October release, the U.S. Army announced that like many large organizations, it will wait on upgrading to Windows 7.  However, unlike some, it is planning a major upgrade -- to Windows Vista.

The U.S. Army currently has 744,000 desktop computers, most of which run Windows XP.  Currently only 13 percent of the computers have upgraded to Windows Vista, according Dr. Army Harding, director of Enterprise Information Technology Services.

It announced in a press release that it will be upgrading all of the remaining systems to Windows Vista by December 31st.  The upgrade was mandated by a Fragmentary Order published Nov. 22, 2008.

In addition to Windows Vista, the Army's version of Microsoft's Office will also be upgraded.  As with Windows, the Army is forgoing the upcoming new version -- Office 2010 -- in favor to an upgrade to Office 2007.  Currently about half of the Army's computers run Office 2003 and half run Office 2007.

The upgrade will affect both classified and unclassified networks.  Only standalone weapons systems (such as those used by nuclear depots) will remain unchanged.  Dr. Harding states, "It's for all desktop computers on the SIPR and NIPRNET."

Army officials cite the need to bolster Internet security and standardize its information systems as key factors in selecting a Windows Vista upgrade.  Likewise, they believe that an upgrade to Office 2007 will bring better document security, and easier interfacing to other programs, despite the steeper learning curve associate with the program (which is partially due to the new interface, according to reviewers).

Sharon Reed, chief of IT at the Soldier Support Institute, says the Army will provide resources to help soldiers learn the ropes of Windows Vista.  She states, "During this process, we are offering several in-house training sessions, helpful quick-tip handouts and free Army online training."

The U.S. Army will perhaps be the largest deployment of Windows Vista in the U.S.  Most large corporations keep quiet about how many Windows Vista systems versus Windows XP systems they've deployed.  However, past surveys and reports indicate that most major businesses have declined to fully adopt Windows Vista.  Likewise, U.S. public schools and other large government organizations have only, at best, partially adopted of Vista.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Man I can already feel the headache...
By Wightout on 5/23/2009 7:52:54 PM , Rating: 2
Im in the Army.

The manuals we use for our maintenance are all on computers (Dell laptops that are 3+ years old). It runs slow with XP on it.

Can't imagine how well these machines are gonna hold up with vista on it... =/

RE: Man I can already feel the headache...
By Belard on 5/25/09, Rating: -1
RE: Man I can already feel the headache...
By callmeroy on 5/26/2009 8:34:29 AM , Rating: 5
I hate comments like that....

The comments are mean ones that imply the daily posters to this board are more knowledgeable and can figure out a "problem" (or if the case may be...a "solution") within 5 minutes of reading an article on some website, as if the trained professionals at the company being talked about (in this case the US Army) aren't as bright as said forum posters are...

The whole notion is ridiculous to me....I'm well sure that the Army are extremely aware of the performance issues with running Vista on machines with a given hardware spec. I'm pretty sure the organization charged with the defense of 300+ million Americans can at least talk to one knowledgeable IT guy......

I mean come on...if its a story on a "mom and pop" shop that's doing some silly, that's one thing -- but jeez...the military not knowing how to install Windows on a machine that will run it properly....that's simply moronic.

By afkrotch on 5/26/2009 8:50:24 AM , Rating: 2
Those who actual maintain the systems know that this is a bad move. The problem is, the ppl who make the decisions to push this forward.

I'm in the Airforce and there's always someone who makes these kind of stupid decisions. We have so many startup scripts, logon scripts, etc that run on our machines that from pushing the button to actually being able to do something on the desktop will take anywhere from 2 - 10 mins.

I'm using an E6400 C2D with 4 gigs of memory, Quadro card, and 160 gig hdd right now. It's one of our work comps. It takes me almost 3 mins to boot up and start using Windows. Under a standard, non-militarized install, the same process would take all of like 10 seconds.

RE: Man I can already feel the headache...
By marvdmartian on 5/26/2009 10:10:32 AM , Rating: 3
Can't say how the army is, but since I work for another DoD branch, I can say how my computer at work is, and I agree with your assessment that the computers will need some fairly decent upgrading.
My computer at work is an Athlon 64-3500+ with 1GB of ram, running Windows XP (SP3) and Office 2007. Normally, that would be just fine for everyday word processing, e-mail, and other office related activities, if you're running a normal version of windows and office, with everyday security programs installed.
However, I think the problem isn't so much with the hardware, but rather the half-crippled software they put on the machines. For reasons of security, Uncle doesn't want a standard form of Windows on his computers (of course, we wouldn't want our soldiers, sailors, marines & airmen playing solitaire, would we??). I fully understand why they do that.
But what it does is take a computer that should be able to handle the OS they put on it, and cripple it with so much "security" that it runs like a hog. Seriously, it takes upwards of 5 minutes for me to log on, wait for all the security reminder pop-ups, start up Outlook, and get it to check for new e-mail, AFTER I log on!! Believe me, it's oftentimes frustrating using that machine, when it seems to take twice as long to accomplish any task!

IMHO, the government should, at the very least, look to upgrade any computer (or replace it with a new unit), BEFORE they upgrade the operating system. But since DoD is notoriously slow in upgrading, I won't hold my breath. Oh, and believe it or not, the computer I use at work is considered "new" as of 3 years ago, when they upgraded me from a 1.3GHZ machine running 256mb of ram, which had been an upgrade from 2 years previously, when I ran a 500MHz machine with 256mb of ram in it. Yeah.....

RE: Man I can already feel the headache...
By wallijonn on 5/26/2009 11:59:41 AM , Rating: 1
My computer at work is an Athlon 64-3500+ with 1GB of ram

I think you'll find that the latest Win7 candidate flys on that hardware configuration.

By adiposity on 5/26/2009 12:34:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think you'll find that the latest Win7 candidate flys on that hardware configuration.

With nothing else installed, maybe. But that was not the problem...I'm sure XP was quite fast on that machine with a clean install, too.


By Kaldor on 5/26/2009 3:54:16 PM , Rating: 2
Your forgetting about the mountain of crap that DoD probably installs on these PCs... 1 gig of ram is no where near enough ram on a workstation.

By extraflamey22 on 5/26/2009 4:52:55 PM , Rating: 3
I'm a network administrator at a USAF base. I'm sure this varies across the different branches, but I received the following machine a month ago as a "Quarterly Buy" to replace my old XP workhorse, and there's already an updated configuration available that's better than this one.

Windows Vista Enterprise SP1
AMD Phenom 8600B Triple-Core Processor 2.3GHz
4.00GB RAM
ATI Radeon 3100

From the login screen to reading email in Outlook takes about 1 minute 20 seconds, with local DCs and remote Exchange servers, and this is after NAS authentication to the domain. Honestly, it just sounds like your ADPE shop/Resource Advisors aren't doing their jobs and keeping your workstations up to date.

From an administration stand-point, Vista is a huge improvement over XP. SMS/SCCM is vastly more dependable with Vista, MSRA is now built-in instead of being tacked on in XP, and Vista plays much nicer with multiple CAC readers when interfacing with the UAC and our PKI infrastructure.

Granted, there are some user-education issues with a new OS, but you're always going to have users who are just not tech-inclined, and aren't willing to expend the minimal effort required to learn something new.

By krumph on 5/27/2009 3:22:39 PM , Rating: 1
I am retired Army and work in IT and thats a bad move by the Army. Vista sucks rock bottom. We have test laptop that has 4 gig of ram and the performance is really bad. windows98 runs fasters than vista. good luck to you all. another bad decision by the Army.

By Dfere on 5/29/2009 8:50:51 AM , Rating: 2
As compared to what?
I just saw a friend who is a bookkeeper, she is still running XP with a 2.3 MHz celeron and only 256 MB of RAM. Because she runs her own business. I'm upgrading the RAM as much as possible for her now.

I use a two year old Vostro for my daily work needs, and I digitize all documents. I'm constantly running scanning software while running tax and accounting programs and haven't hit too much of a delay... on a notebook.

The Army isn't Anandtech. It isn't up to the ARMY to give you the latest and greatest hardware.

I only recently upgraded my home processor (which I do casual gaming and work on) from 1.8 MHZ to almost 3. From the posts here, if true, show the ARMY is spending more per soldier than is needed for average gaming, and is at least on par or better than the tax and accounting departments of even large manufacturing companies I consult with. These specs are seriously ahead of even a lot of medium sized business clients....

Army Gamers?
By Tsuwamono on 5/23/2009 5:48:31 PM , Rating: 3
Anyone else notice the highlighted FPS keys? WASD was in yellow if i saw correctly. lol.

RE: Army Gamers?
By foolsgambit11 on 5/23/2009 6:32:40 PM , Rating: 5
Not WADS. The A isn't highlighted. It looks like the highlighted keys are space bar, X, V, B, M, S, D, F, G, J, W, E, R, T, reverse single quotes, and tab. Obviously the pertinent keys for whatever they're doing - the steering wheel suggests possibly UAV controls, or ground-based robots? Although maybe it's some game-type simulation.

I'm a little confused about other aspects of the pic, since there's a guy wearing a brassard with sergeant stripes on it, which I've only heard of in an initial training environment, but there are people with combat patches, so they're not new recruits.

RE: Army Gamers?
By achintya on 5/25/2009 9:37:46 AM , Rating: 2
shown here (at the NCO Academy's Warrior Leaders Course)

Picture Title. NCO = Non Commissioned Officer = Rank below Lieutenant (Corporal & Sergeant)
Therefore there exists some sort of training for NCO's.

RE: Army Gamers?
By Artic Joe on 5/26/2009 10:16:45 AM , Rating: 5
Its a Scenerio Simulation. They are probably doing Convoy Security Situations.

In WLC, to keep a rank structure (since its a school for all e-4/e-5 to learn to be a e-5) they give each platoon a "class platoon sgt" "class squad leader" "class team leader" and "Class first sgt" They wear the rank on their sleeves.

By stubeck on 5/23/2009 4:09:13 PM , Rating: 2
Also as part of the upgrade process, Microsoft's Office will also be upgraded. As with Windows, Microsoft is forgoing the upcoming new version Office 2010 -- in favor to an upgrade to Office 2007. Currently about half of the Army's computers run Office 2003 and half run Office 2007.

Wait, whats going on now?

RE: Wat?
By Master Kenobi on 5/23/2009 4:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
The US Army is moving to an all Vista/OFfice 2007 standard.

RE: Wat?
By stubeck on 5/23/2009 8:39:07 PM , Rating: 2
Then why say Microsoft isn't moving to Office 2010?

RE: Wat?
By Some1ne on 5/23/2009 4:28:55 PM , Rating: 5
I think the part that says "As with Windows, Microsoft is forgoing the upcoming new version Office 2010 ..." was meant to say something like:

"As with Windows, the Army is forgoing the upcoming new version of Office, Office 2010 ..."

By rninneman on 5/25/2009 3:02:09 AM , Rating: 5
This article and particularly the title are misleading and typical Mick bias. The article would have you believe the Army is forgoing Windows 7 and Office 2010 in favor of Vista and Office 07. It also goes on to state that they want the upgrade complete by the end of the year. Windows 7 will just becoming available and Office 2010 won't even be out until next year. There is no way an organization can prepare and test images for 800,000 computers to have Windows 7 deployed between the time it is released later this year and December 31st.

My question to Mick, show us where the Army specifically said they will not be using Windows 7 and Office 2010. They will most likely upgrade to both once they have been out and proper testing is completed.

Mick's articles do nothing but bring down the general quality of the artiles on Dailytech.

By Zingam on 5/25/2009 7:13:59 AM , Rating: 2
What's the point to upgrade from XP to Vista or W7 except if you're changing your PC?

RE: ????
By Veerappan on 5/28/2009 9:44:32 AM , Rating: 2
Upgrading from a mix of Windows XP and Windows Vista to only Vista machines means that your IT staff only has to support one OS, not two. This can simplify your support needs quite a bit, and might make the upgrade worth it by itself.

Same goes for standardizing on Office 2007.

vista curve
By hapticz on 5/23/2009 5:23:05 PM , Rating: 3
enhanced visual cues has thrown a great upgrade into turmoil as may users resist change and better performance. demands of greater CPU power has hampered older users who retain 'legacy' hardware. as with all deep pocket contracts, the ultimate payee will be the taxpayer.

Don't misquote the article...
By quiksilv3r on 5/23/2009 6:32:01 PM , Rating: 2
Please don't misquote the article. The article says that the Army is upgrading all of its WINDOWS based PCs to Vista, not all of its PCs.

There are still many computers that will run on *nix operating systems as well as custom ones.

I come here to read accurate articles, not some summary of an article that was barely glanced at. Thanks.

By foolsgambit11 on 5/23/2009 7:09:53 PM , Rating: 1
Are those computers connected to SIPR/NIPR?

Either way, I thought the article was clear, since it wouldn't be an upgrade if those systems were running *nix OSes - it would be a downgrade! BOOM!

Sorry. I mean, for me, 'upgrading' pretty clearly meant only those systems which already used the product line. Otherwise it would have been 'switching'. Ergo, this only applies to Windows boxes.

By chrnochime on 5/24/2009 10:12:34 AM , Rating: 2
As with Windows, Microsoft is forgoing the upcoming new version -- Office 2010 -- in favor to an upgrade to Office 2007.

Don't you mean the Army? Obviously a typo, but it sure would be great if Microsoft decides to stick with their current bloated Office 2k7 instead of making an even more bloated 2010 version...

By Skunkbeard on 5/28/2009 9:46:39 PM , Rating: 2
Look....I'm not in the Army, but even I can tell someone has been taking liberty with photoshop. Sgt stripes on the ACU? Please...just cause you wanted to make the Army look bad? Army is not the only DoD entity moving to Vista. I'm pretty sure all of DoD organizations are moving that way. For the most part, most of them will also be upgrading their hardware along with it. This is now the second article with the same story line. You got a beef against the Military? Why don't you just come out and say it. Any large corporation isn't going to upgrade their software on the drop of a hat without doing extensive testing and then they will only implement those parts of the OS that meets their needs. You, who supposedly work in the IT business, would know this...but then again...I could be wrong.

what a stupid decison
By ForumMaster on 5/29/2009 8:48:53 AM , Rating: 2
i'm in the IDF. we use mostly dell (some older dell workstations) computers. all the new ones come with windows vista business edition. the first thing we do when we get them is erase it and put a custom install of windows xp on it.

and even if the army was going to upgrade from windows xp, why to windows vista? we all already see that windows 7 is so much better? or why not ubuntu? save so much money?

By aguilpa1 on 5/24/09, Rating: 0
Army = not
By GlassHouse69 on 5/24/09, Rating: -1
Missing the point
By mindless1 on 5/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Missing the point
By Master Kenobi on 5/23/2009 4:36:22 PM , Rating: 4
XP is holding hardware back at this point. 64-bit needs to replace 32-bit to allow for hardware advancements to continue. XP64 is also not that great.

RE: Missing the point
By gigahertz20 on 5/23/2009 5:02:36 PM , Rating: 5
XP is holding hardware back at this point. 64-bit needs to replace 32-bit to allow for hardware advancements to continue. XP64 is also not that great.

Yeah, but your average PC user could care less about 64 bit. They are content with their store bought computer that lets them send e-mail, look up information on the internet, and type up various documents to print off. There is no compelling reason to upgrade if what they have works fine. Most people only upgrade when they trash their old computer and buy a new one.

RE: Missing the point
By RamarC on 5/23/2009 6:17:38 PM , Rating: 2
we're not talking about the "average PC user."

we're talking about the equivalent of a major corporation deciding what their OS of choice will be for the next decade (and where they're going to spend $20M). i think they have different rationale/motivations than the "average PC user."

RE: Missing the point
By Samus on 5/23/2009 6:44:18 PM , Rating: 3
the 'average' pc user will have a reason to need 64-bit eventually. when the majority of the market is 64-bit, innovation will leap forward in 64-bit software developement. sometimes things have to happen before others can.

take for example, everytime a new version of windows is released, memory prices drop, because with a new version of windows comes the need for more memory. one affects the other, and now that people have more ram, they can run newer software that can take advantage of it.

office 2007 is an improvement over 2003 (not that 2003 was bad, but it was lacking some modern day security features and save-to-pdf support) so its good to hear the military is pushing that.

RE: Missing the point
By Cypherdude1 on 5/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: Missing the point
By Locutus465 on 5/25/2009 11:06:59 AM , Rating: 1
Wow, talk about arguing from a position of ignorance...

1). 1GB was enough back in the day because all the rest of the hardware in your system wasn't fast enough to take advantage of more data intensive apps. Think games for starters, you couldn't even run Crysis on a 2001 era PC! More advanced CAD applicatinos available now on 64bit windows systems wouldn't run, basically today's more data instansive apps just wouldn't be practical on the kind of machine you're talking about. The world is moving on, 64bit is where it's heading, XP doesn't have a satisfactory 64bit implementation (if you ever thought vista was bad, XP64 is worse).

2). XP is just inherently less secure than vista, worse yet it's extremely well understood to those looking to attack systems. On the other hand Microsoft has had a real success with security with vista. UAC even works far better than I originally thought, the auto-elevate feature has proven to not yet be as problematic as I thought it would. Though I still wish you could simply disable autoelevate some how, at the very least optionally.

3). Believe it or not, the Vista UI is more efficient to work with than the XP UI. Having search available everywhere has proven to be extremely handy, the search box in the start button is awesome, you can use it as a psudo command prompt. It's the small stuff like being able to press windows key, just type 'trillian', press enter and trillian loads. It saves me time! I hate not being able to do that on XP!

4) Give Vista adiquate resources, a decent dual core CPU at least (or better quad, they're CHEAP) and 4GB memory which is also cheap, in fact cheaper than 1GB used to cost in '01 back when it was a lot of memory and a vista PC will respond faster than any XP system.

RE: Missing the point
By goku on 5/25/09, Rating: 0
RE: Missing the point
By pxavierperez on 5/23/2009 5:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more. my experience with windows 7 64bit has bit stellar.

RE: Missing the point
By descendency on 5/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Missing the point
By Master Kenobi on 5/23/2009 5:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
Many consumer PC's bought at BestBuy and the like are now 64-bit. Get with the program.

RE: Missing the point
By descendency on 5/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Missing the point
By foolsgambit11 on 5/23/2009 6:56:41 PM , Rating: 5
You've got your terms mixed up. 'x64' is a shorthand (or possibly a non-AMD-specific reference) for x86-64. IA-64 is the Itanium instruction set. They are not compatible, but x86-64 isn't somehow less than 64 bit because of that. It is a 64-bit instruction set with the ability to run older programs designed for previous x86 instruction sets, potentially all the way back to the 8086, I guess. The Pentium's (and 386's) instruction set, for instance, wasn't less than 32 bit just because it was built to be compatible with the old 8086 and 286 instruction set.

But you're right that most computation done on consumer computers doesn't require 64 bits. It's rare you'll be dealing with a number greater than 4.3 billion on a home computer, other than the previously mentioned case of allocating system resources. When we're talking about users' computations, the advantage of natively-computing 64-bit numbers is rarely needed.

However, I think you're wrong that over-engineering computer resources is a problem. Having access to vast computing resources may encourage sloppy coding, but it's not what's keeping people from taking advantage of a 10x+ increase in computing speed. That speed-up is there whether we have 1 GB or 16 GB of RAM. What the additional resources do allow for is sloppy coding. It sounds bad, but it lowers the bar to entry for people who want to develop programs. Anything that allows more people to compete in a marketplace should be good for the consumer overall.

RE: Missing the point
By sinful on 5/23/2009 6:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
Let me make this perfectly clear, there are two instruction sets that are "common" in CPUs right now (one is FAR more common), x86 and x64. There is ONE architecture implements x64 instruction set, the Itanium (well and Itanium 2). There are boatloads of CPUs (even ones sold at best buy) that support extended x86 (AKA x86-64).

Itanium is IA64. It has nothing to do with x64.

RE: Missing the point
By zebrax2 on 5/23/2009 7:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
whats not needed now does not mean its not needed tomorrow.
as 64bit(or x86-64) slowly take the chunks from the market programmers/developers and hardware vendors will also slowly start giving focus to it. and BTW it does give some performance improvement when the program is coded properly.
vista 32 vs vista 64,2845,2280811...

RE: Missing the point
By croc on 5/23/2009 7:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
"Let me make this perfectly clear, there are two instruction sets that are "common" in CPUs right now (one is FAR more common), x86 and x64. There is ONE architecture implements x64 instruction set, the Itanium (well and Itanium 2). There are boatloads of CPUs (even ones sold at best buy) that support extended x86 (AKA x86-64)."

There are several RISC based CPU's on the market, not one. Every major 'big iron' MFG has /is making RISC based CPU's. IBM's PPC, Sun's Sparc systems, HP uses a variation of the Alpha, (Not the bastardized Itanium that Intel seems to have abandoned...) Fujitsu has their own CPU's, etc. All are RISC based platforms, and all have been since DEC proved the advantages with the original Alpha.

X86 CPU's are all CISC based, and most modern X86 based processors use a variation of AMD's AMD64 extended instruction set.

Please stop passing mis-information.

RE: Missing the point
By Pryde on 5/23/2009 8:56:16 PM , Rating: 4
The terms x86-64 and x64 are often used as terms to refer to x86-64 processors from any company. There is not such thing as x64.

Intel Itanium (formerly IA-64) architecture is not compatible with x86.

AMD have since renamed x86-64 to AMD64. AMD licensed its x86-64 design to Intel, where it is marketed under the name Intel 64. You can be sure that if Intel lost its AMD64 license that AMD would lose its x86 license.

RE: Missing the point
By rninneman on 5/25/2009 2:40:08 AM , Rating: 3
You are very confused/misinformed about 64 bit computing. x64 is the marketing name Microsoft gave to their software that runs on AMD's x86-64 now known as AMD64 and Intel's EM64T now known as Intel 64. Most developers have adopted the same marketing name. The Itanium series CPUs run IA64 software which is a completely different ISA than x64. Itanium cannot run x64 code, only IA64.

While the x86 architecture is technically CISC, the advent of SSE has morphed the ISA into a hybrid of sorts. To much to go into for this post.

RE: Missing the point
By TA152H on 5/25/2009 3:46:14 AM , Rating: 5
You are worse than he is.

Do any of you people posting have any idea what you're talking about? It's like reading nothing but blowhards that have no clue, but like to hear themselves post. Shut up if you don't know what you're talking about!

To clear up all the misinformation posted by people who obviously are not in the computer industry, we'll start with x86 and the Itanium.

In fact, the original Itanium DID run x86 code in hardware. Intel decided to remove it and use software emulation.

The Alpha is no longer being developed, but was 64-bits from when it was conceived. It is also a very overrated, but still decent instruction set. People who have never used an Alpha, and know essentially nothing about it like to post how much better the instruction set was than everything else. In fact, it was not. They made extremely expensive processors, and spent enormous amounts of money on hand-coding a lot of the logic, making the implementation effective in some cases. In reality, it was always swapping places with IBM's POWER, so was never clearly a superior product. Well, for long anyway. They leapfrogged each other. It was a horrible thing to work with though, and got hotter than Hell. It's still made, mostly for OpenVMS, but HP is not doing further development on it.

Intel has certainly not discontinued Itanium, or even deprecated it. They continue to gain market share every year with the Itanium, and HP has many operating systems that use the Itanium, and are very committed to it. They did just delay the Tukwila again though, which is an ongoing problem, since their current processors are still based on 90 nm technology. But, it is still be developed, and still gaining market share.

Most of all, you people have to stop talking about 64-bits and x86-64 like they are the same thing!!!!!!!!!!! 64-bits is not very important, but x86-64 is not just a move to 64-bits. Were it so, the stupid posts about numbers exceeding 32-bit values would actually not be stupid, but sadly, they are. x86-64 got rid of a lot of baggage, like MMX, x87 instruction set, memory segmentation (which was still around on the 386 instruction set, but since the largest segment was 32-bits, it was transparent if desired, an no one used it), etc... It also added things, like eight more registers, which can have an important impact on performance, especially with L1 caches getting slower (4 clock cycles on the Nehalem). There are disadvantages to 64-bit addressing as well, and it's why the 8088 had memory segmentation in the first place (most people think it was to protect applications from each other, but it was not, and was never used that way). On the 8088(or 8086), you'd just have to specify a 16-bit address, and based on the values in the appropriate segment address, you'd generate a real 20-bit address (Intel used some weird shifting of the index register, and then added it to the offset address). So, you'd save memory by not having to specify the 20-bit address. You'd have to update your index registers, of course, when you needed something outside of the 64K segment you were in, but memory at that time was very small, and it was considered a worthwhile trade-off.

64-bit addresses also consume more memory, and lower code density. Of course, we have so much memory now, it does not really matter. Well, except, it lowers performance, because we have caches now, and lower code density means you hit a slower cache, or main memory more often. And caches can not simply be increased in size to compensate for this ugly side-effect, since the larger a cache is, the slower it is, all other things being equal, so you have to add more wait states (for example, the Conroe's L2 cache was one clock cycle faster than the Penryn's because of the additional size. The Nehalem's is five clock cycles faster then the Penryn's; that's why they made it only 256K - it's also faster because it's not shared between cores anymore).

So, if there were no changes besides going to 64-bit, you'd generally expect x86-64 to be slower due to lower code density - unless you were using more memory, or somehow using very large numbers. For most applications, it would be slower though. That's why you see uneven performance. The enhancements, like 16 registers can improve performance, but the lower code density can lower it. Whichever is more relevant within that workload will dictate whether you see an increase or decrease in performance.

Oh, and DEC did not invent the RISC concept, or even come close to it. Why do you pass this misinformation on, when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about! It's infuriating when idiots do this, and then someone repeats it because they don't realize you're an idiot.

CDC was the first to create a true RISC processor, in a machine called the 6600. It used a 10 MHz processor attached to 10 barrel processors. It could not even load or store data, all this was done by the barrel processors that kept it fed.

IBM also released the RT PC long before the Alpha, which, of course, was a RISC processor. Berkeley might also get offended by you saying Alpha proved RISC's superiority. But, I'll let you do that research on your own, assuming you actually dislike passing on misinformation. There's no evidence of that though.

RE: Missing the point
By amanojaku on 5/23/2009 9:18:10 PM , Rating: 4
x86 is "32 bit". x86-64 is 32 bit instruction set with ability to address 64 bits (2^64) of RAM.

When people refer to 64-bit CPUs they are referring to the word size , i.e. the size of the CPU registers (data and/or instruction) and the amount of data processed at once. 64-bit data registers yield the following native ranges:

Unsigned Integers - 0 to 4,294,967,295
Signed Integers - -2147483648 to 2147483647
Floating Point - See
Memory addresses - 0 to 16 exbibytes (colloquially, and incorrectly, referred to as exabytes)
Bus component transfer - 0 to 64 bits transferred between bus components (PCIe slots, CPU sockets, RAM slots, etc...)

There are exceptions, however, generally based on practicality. 16 exbibytes of RAM is inconceivable today due to cost and complexity of manufacture. I challenge you to find any company that CAN manufacture that much RAM globally in a year, let alone for one system. CPU manufacturers reduce memory address space to reflect the limits of available memory (pebibytes) in order to shrink CPU die size. Why bother producing memory addressing for memory that won't exist for a few years, if not decades? As higher RAM densities are produced the CPU address space will increase accordingly.

AMD, IBM, Intel, SUN, VIA, and other companies produce native 64-bit CPUs with the addressing hobbled, and in some cases the bus width is limited to 32-bit. All other features are 64-bit. The x86-64 instruction set architecture includes 32 and 64-bit registers, appropriately activated when the OS chooses an operating mode.

RE: Missing the point
By foolsgambit11 on 5/24/2009 3:55:22 PM , Rating: 5
I think you've got the ranges for 32-bit, not 64-bit, at least for signed and unsigned integer. 64-bit is about 0 to 18 quintillion or so.

RE: Missing the point
By amanojaku on 5/24/2009 5:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
You are 100% correct. Thanks for pointing that out!

Unsigned integer range: 0 to 18,446,744,073,709,551,615
Signed integer range: -9,223,372,036,854,775,808 to 9,223,372,036,854,775,807

RE: Missing the point
By RamarC on 5/23/2009 6:10:40 PM , Rating: 5
most of your argument is no different than the arguments against windows 98 and windows xp. to the casual user, any changes "under the hood" are invisible so they focus on the UI.

but i dare you to try to run modern apps on xp with only 512mb of ram which was typical when xp debuted. i also dare you to attach a 1tb sata drive to xp-rtm. a service pack had to address hard drive size limitations. rather than continue to patch xp, vista/win7 have been rearchitected to handle the increased demands of today's software and exploit the increased functionality of today's hardware.

and as for "true 64bit" you sound like one of the techies who don't know what they're talking about. itanimum has no 32bit support but that doesn't make it the only "true" 64bit processor. intel made a conscious decision not to PROVIDE 32bit support, but it certainly could have. in simple terms, the only true restriction of a processor is that it cannot run software that is "larger" than its memory access. so a 64bit cpu could run 32bit and 16bit code. but a cpu with 16bit memory access will NEVER be able to run 32bit code.

RE: Missing the point
By descendency on 5/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Missing the point
By foolsgambit11 on 5/23/2009 7:03:18 PM , Rating: 3
Nope. Itanium runs the IA-64 instruction set. It's totally different from the x86 instruction set line, which includes x86-64 (commonly referred to as x64). IA-64 was designed to address certain inadequecies in the x86 instruction set that made it less than optimum for certain operations. Those changes made it incompatible with the old x86 instruction set. You're right about many of the details, but not about the names.

I think it makes much more sense for business users to be behind consumers. Certain businesses which perform especially computationally-intensive operations would be an exception, but for the most part, business use is about reliability more than performance. Reliability is less of an issue in the consumer space.

RE: Missing the point
By fsardis on 5/23/2009 7:10:24 PM , Rating: 5
Are you insane or smoking funny stuff today?

The enterprise market should be on the latest OS and the consumers one generation behind? And you expect to be taken seriously?
Simple scenarios to consider:
1- Hey boss, we got a 10GB database holding our financial data but because the drivers for the new OS on the server are not quite ironed out we had a crash and now it is corrupt. We have to restore from backup now....
2- Awww man, this stupid latest OS crashed and I lost my pr0n collection...

Now tell me which one would be more catastrophic. Care to explain to me why the enterprise would want such a high risk? You are asking basically the people who run mission critical system for their company and perhaps for a great number of people on the planet, to be the beta testers while your average Joe will only lose a few GB of pr0n. Good thinking there, please never apply for network design jobs.

As for your 64bit rant, I will leave it at that and only say that a few years back the same was claimed by "experts" such as yourself for 16bit and 32bit. I mean 640KB of RAM should be enough for everyone yes? And nobody can ever fill 20GB of space, can they? And while we are at it, let's all go back to DOS and let the enterprises use features such as the Aero Glass and Widgets because they increase the productivity so greatly in the work environment.

And yes, I have written code and yes, I am working with hardware and software daily and yes, I design networks.

RE: Missing the point
By foolsgambit11 on 5/23/2009 7:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. It's an 'if you build it, they will come' kind of scenario. Give people the resources, and they'll find a good use for it. Yes, I mean 'good', as in, useful, just like the uses found for the expanded capabilities of 32-bit.

RE: Missing the point
By CSMR on 5/24/2009 9:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
Agree with the conclusion but a business upgrading client OSes isn't going to have data loss from any bugs; we're not talking about servers here?

RE: Missing the point
By DeGhost on 5/24/2009 4:45:49 AM , Rating: 1
i do
already running out of space
and i have 3 TB of storage
and what does 64bit instruction have to do with drive size?
enterprise ran into storage size problem long ago and there is an extension to make a bigger address table, i forgot what it is called
today's computer are written with million+ lines of code, object oriented programing and high level language add overhead, if you want lean mean code you could try coding in assembly, i challenge you to write something with a friendly gui for an "average" joe.

RE: Missing the point
By DeGhost on 5/24/2009 4:33:21 AM , Rating: 3
“Considering that fact and the fact that the average home user could get away with a minimalistic OS that uses under 4 gb of RAM (because email, twitter, etc doesn't consume gigabytes of RAM...), the expansion to 64-bit is a lot less important than some techies (most of whom don't know what they are talking about) would like you to believe.”

By your usage the “average” home user could use 512 ram and a 800mhz p3 with 20 gig of space on hard disk. That might be you?

“SSD (omg those expensive things... yes) support would be far more important to the average user than 64-bit support. The 450$ SSD in my computer has improved boot time more than any other device I own. (my computer is getting towards needing an update... but being a college student working a university [low paying] job, I have to pick and choose...)”

From all the benchmarks and uses for ssd I read over the year. Ssd doesn’t seem to be that great to boot with, its real strength is nonexistent search time for out of order data like a database. It might be better to raid your drives for faster boot. And for budgeting “student”. I don’t see why you need a ssd, raid solution is way cheaper and have comparable speed

“How many true 64-bit processors are on the market now? Lots right? Wrong. Itanium is the ONLY true 64-bit processor. The rest are 80x86-64 processors (or "extended 32-bit" processors). Just as an aside, AMD claims to own that instruction set... I wonder how that will play out in court when/if intel tries to claim AMD is breaking the rules with the x86 instruction set... That's really way beyond the point..”

This makes no sense to me. Actually, x86 is owned by intel and amd made the extended instruction set for 64bit which was so widely popular becuase of backward compatibility that intel adopted. Pulling from my head(might be wrong) all current mainstream processors, except the atom have amd’s x64 instruction set.

“If MS was purely aiming for the consumer market, they would be aiming for things like SSD integration, DirectX 11 (which will be huge in video playback quality and processing), and the like instead of things that enterprise users would need (like 64-bit).”

That again made no sense to me. What are you playing back with that requires ssd(which you seem to think is the end all solution),if your doing raw video editing raid would work better because of thruput vs price(you can probably raid 10 drives for the price of a ssd). And dx11 in this scenario made no sense. Direct x is an api for computer generated graphics. And video processing I would think means encoding, which is more cpu bound then anything else.

“I've always been slow to adopt OSs because most of them are buggy from day 1 (XP hasn't crashed on me in over 1.5 years... no viruses or headaches either). I will probably upgrade to Vista soon (or just wait 3 more years for Win 7 SP2).”
Personal preferences, do whatever you want.

“There is no need for the average consumer to use Vista or any other OS except MS wants to sell copies of it's OS to them so they force you to buy it for things like DX10 (which isn't even required yet...)”
Not true, vista is actually a lot more user friendly then xp. Your “average” consumer is computer illiterate, they just want something that works, since they are average I don’t think they will install a new thing every week, and a popup that ask are you sure is not that annoying to them. Vista is way more secure then xp when you click every link that pops up. And no one is forcing you to buy dx10, just like no one is making you use a computer. But dx 10 is an evolutionary upgrade.
“Eh, that's probably a lot of useless information.”

Well yes it was because all it seems to be is a rant on Microsoft and getting everyone to buy a ssd.

RE: Missing the point
By Veerappan on 5/28/2009 10:14:58 AM , Rating: 2
“If MS was purely aiming for the consumer market, they would be aiming for things like SSD integration, DirectX 11 (which will be huge in video playback quality and processing), and the like instead of things that enterprise users would need (like 64-bit).”

I think he was attempting to imply that the GPU Computing features of DX11 (comparable to OpenCL) would allow developers to write generic DX-based programs to do decoding/re-encoding of video streams on the GPU instead of on the CPU, thereby speeding up the processing.

Other than that, yeah, this guy is seriously misinformed.

RE: Missing the point
By NullSubroutine on 5/23/2009 10:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what you are smoking, XP64 was the most stable OS I have ever used, except maybe MSDOS.

RE: Missing the point
By SiliconAddict on 5/23/2009 11:07:35 PM , Rating: 4
Ummm yah if you were running JUST 64-bit apps, if not you are pretty much hosed. WOW64 sucked butt on XP64. Vista64 is at least 10x better. IMHO Windows 7 64 is prob something like 50x better.

RE: Missing the point
By Flunk on 5/24/2009 1:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
Stable, maybe. But its hardware support is lacking, at least for my hardware. Also it has some weird compatibility quirks that seem to have disappeared since I upgraded to Vista x64 which is at least as stable. I can only really recall Vista blue screening 4 times since I installed it 2 years ago and both times were because of Nvidia drivers.

RE: Missing the point
By Flunk on 5/24/2009 1:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, I guess that should have been "all four of those times".

RE: Missing the point
By Googer on 5/24/2009 4:40:39 AM , Rating: 3
Strangely, the army rejected a customized locked down version of XP with security features not found anywhere else.

(with screen shot)

RE: Missing the point
By Googer on 5/24/2009 4:43:39 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Missing the point
By Silver2k7 on 5/24/2009 8:41:18 AM , Rating: 2

EFI (replacing bios)

The ability to format 2GB+ harddrives

DirectX 10 / DirectX 11

The ability to adjust screen text for really high res monitors

added some to your list ;)

RE: Missing the point
By Silver2k7 on 5/24/2009 8:43:02 AM , Rating: 2
the above was a response to

"XP is holding hardware back at this point. 64-bit needs to replace 32-bit to allow for hardware advancements to continue. XP64 is also not that great."

RE: Missing the point
By Silver2k7 on 5/24/2009 8:44:16 AM , Rating: 2
meant 2TB

*an edit button would been nice*

RE: Missing the point
By gigahertz20 on 5/23/2009 4:50:58 PM , Rating: 4
+1 I agree with everything you say. Microsoft needs to include features and enhancements that make a new OS a "Must Have" but they have failed to do that. Most people I know just stick with XP because it works and performance is fine for the stuff they do. Why upgrade to a new OS, if it doesn't really offer that much over the old one?

Most people here on Anandtech will upgrade to Windows 7 or make a trip to a bittorent site, but your average person will not change a thing. The store bought computer they own that has Windows XP/Vista on it will stay that way until they buy a new computer in the future.

It's too bad they cannot increase performance dramatically with each new Windows release, but I guess there is only so much you can do to optimize the code and still maintain backwards compatibility. Imagine if your FPS in games went up 30% by upgrading to a new OS or application load times decreased by 60%, people would surly upgrade then.

RE: Missing the point
By Flunk on 5/24/2009 1:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
I agree the average person just buys a new computer, if Microsoft hypes Windows enough they may sell more machines but that's about it.

RE: Missing the point
By Darkk on 5/26/2009 12:37:14 AM , Rating: 2
I too was using WinXP for years and recently reformatted my hard drive to run Windows 7. I've skipped Vista entirely as most people have to wait out on Win7.

For the most part I do like Win7 and it's features. Since it's currently in RC form there are some quirks. None of them are earthshattering but still annoying. Hopefully at the time of the offical release those quirks will be ironed out.

RE: Missing the point
By ncage on 5/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Missing the point
By ncage on 5/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Missing the point
By Darkk on 5/26/2009 12:48:11 AM , Rating: 2
Problem is more and more equipment are networked and designed that way to reduce complexity and wiring costs.

The issues are at two folds:

1) The MRI equipment didn't use proper firewall rules to only accept packets from other MRI equipment at the SAME hospital.

2) The system admins there didn't put in firewall restriction rules to disallow ALL internet traffic to ALL MRI machines. Doh!!! A simple thing to do!

Unfortunately, most IT departments at hospitals are usually understaffed or none at all. Or don't have the IT staff with the proper experience to do the right things.

So I guess they learned their lesson and changed their policy on MRI useage.

big security hole
By coastie on 5/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: big security hole
By JasonMick on 5/23/2009 4:42:19 PM , Rating: 4
There's security holes in OS X and Linux distros as well, don't fool yourself. Many application level exploits (Firefox, Adobe Flash, Adobe PDF Reader, etc.) work on cross platform.

Actually, one of the best points of Windows Vista was its great improvements to security over Windows XP, even versus the SP3 version of XP. No matter how many Apple commercials say otherwise, Windows Vista is surprisingly secure for an OS with such a broad deployment (making it the primary target of attacks).

Likewise, Microsoft has proven itself much quicker at patching and addressing the majority of critical security flaws versus competitors, like Apple. While the few that it leaves open make headlines, overall it patches much faster than OS X/most Linux distros.

Whatever OS you're on there's a degree of insecurity. Nothing can replace smart administration. It makes sense for the Army to upgrade to Vista, though, as it brings a lot of improvements over XP.

RE: big security hole
By Master Kenobi on 5/23/2009 4:44:46 PM , Rating: 5
Ditto. This is a solid decision.

RE: big security hole
By Lord 666 on 5/23/2009 5:15:30 PM , Rating: 2
It just took time for the hardware to catch up to Vista.

Going to check out the e-learning material the Army has posted for use with my company. Was waiting until all of the machines were modernized with a Vista migration in the fall.

RE: big security hole
By foolsgambit11 on 5/23/2009 5:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that, but it always takes time for major institutions to move to a new OS. You deploy in a small environment, work out the kinks, and ensure that it performs as expected with all of the software you use. Additionally, by waiting, issues that weren't apparent at release get fixed by the manufacturer. Three years after release is about the normal timeframe for new OS adoption by institutions.

As for the Office upgrades, it's about time. I was still using Office 97 on some DOD computers as late as early 2008 (last time I was working for DOD). Although, now that I think about it, they were 'stand alone' - at least, they weren't hooked up to SIPR or NIPR, so they still might not get an upgrade.

RE: big security hole
By civilgeek on 5/23/2009 5:24:23 PM , Rating: 1
I don't find this as a solid decision for the taxpayers dollars. You don't upgrade to an OS platform at the end of its lifecycle. In 3 years time microsoft will drop support for vista and we will once again be paying for the next upgrade. They should wait the next 6-18 months for the release of 7 and maybe sp1 and then upgrade for a lot longer product cycle and ensured support (security patches). This is not a smart move and yet just another short sited waste of our hard earned money.

RE: big security hole
By foolsgambit11 on 5/23/2009 6:05:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's not like they can't use Vista after its lifecycle is over - XP's lifecycle is already over, and they're still using it. Excepting extended support, which continues until 2014, but if we're counting that, then Vista's extended support continues to 2017. Still, the end of mainstream support for XP probably played a key role in the decision to upgrade to what is ready and available now. So it is possible they'll upgrade to Windows 7 come 2012.

However, the military currently has to support both Vista and XP. There should be some savings realized from having to support only one platform (although probably not near the cost of upgrading). Additionally, having known plenty of S6 personnel (that's the military's staff section that handles computer systems), the simpler things can be made for them, the more likely they won't screw it up.

And even more, Windows 7 won't be ready for military deployment in 6-18 months. Even as polished as 7 appears to be at this point, for the sake of security, the military will probably wait until it's been out for a couple of years and is on SP1 before it considers a full-scale upgrade. I doubt they can wait until 2012 to upgrade from XP. In the meantime, though, they'll be getting computers to replace old machines, and so they'll be getting Vista machines anyway. They'll be just about ready to move away from Vista at the same moment its mainstream support ends.

RE: big security hole
By Noliving on 5/23/2009 9:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree, this isn't upgrading to an OS at the end of its life cycle, this is the begining to middle part of this lifecycle, even with windows 7 to be launched later this year. Windows 7 is said to be much more expensive then windows vista, it's more expensive to do it your way where you upgrade the OS all the time like ever 3 years. When it comes to the US military they use what works and how effective it is, not how old it is, I mean for crying out loud the US military is still using .50 caliber machine guns from the korean war in iraq and afghanistan. You have to remember: If its stupid and it works it aint stupid.

RE: big security hole
By civilgeek on 5/23/2009 10:45:36 PM , Rating: 2
You can't compare the lifecycle of xp and vista and expect the same. XP has been the most successful OS microsoft has ever produced and has been out for almost a decade now. It is the mainstay of millions of businesses right now and still in millions of homes... this is why it is still supported and will be for some time. Vista by all means was a failure both publically and especially for businesses. The military only has 13% conversion from the artical above and your not going to see a huge cost associated with that small of numbers. In addition, most businesses have not made the leap yet to Vista because there really wasn't a reason for them to jump. The moral of the story is Microsoft WILL stop supporting Vista much sooner than your seeing with XP because its lifetime was short along with its distribution. In addition, windows 7 is built on Vista... why would it be less secure? It is a more refined product that learned from Vista.

Windows 7 is the answer and with support for XP extended to cover till SP1 this is an ill advised upgrade.

RE: big security hole
By foolsgambit11 on 5/24/2009 4:33:34 PM , Rating: 3
XP will be covered for 5 more years, but only for security hot-fixes, and only for those who pay for extended life cycle support. Mainstream support is over. Period.

Vista will be under mainstream life cycle support for the next 3 years, where feature and security hot-fixes will be released for free to all users. After that, it will be in extended life cycle support, with the same caveats as XP currently has.

Windows 7 will have the same life cycle times as Vista (5 & 5). By the time the military is comfortable with moving to Win7 (about 2 years after it is released), it will be as close to the end of its life cycle as Vista currently is.


If the military has a million Windows boxes (one for every other Soldier, Sailor, Airman, and Marine, approximately) then it needs about 830,000 new Vista licenses. We can assume that they'll get a good deal on a purchase like that, but let's say they pay $100/license anyway. That's $83 million. The military could buy one less F-22, pay for the upgrades, and still have over $260 million left over. Or, if you insist on the taxpayer directly paying for it, then each individual American's part of the $83 million amounts to about 13 cents. If you count payroll taxes as part of your tax burden (it kind of is, in a way), then your portion would be about 22 cents.

Consider that supporting multiple OSes where this isn't necessary puts undue strain on the military's IT resources. Upgrading all computers to Vista, once complete, will allow IT to better secure military networks against foreign threats (not just because Vista is more secure, but because settings can be universal, and homogeneity prevents errors).

So, let me ask you: Would you really refuse to pay 22 cents to protect America?!?!

RE: big security hole
By Strandwolf on 5/24/2009 11:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't we just ban box cutters?

RE: big security hole
By Gholam on 5/24/2009 12:24:18 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the .50 M2 Browning Machine Gun is a 1921 design.

RE: big security hole
By foolsgambit11 on 5/24/2009 4:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
I think he meant that there are specific 50 cals that were used in the Korean War and are still used today. Or, to put it in clear terms, there are instances of class 'FiftyCal.M2', with creation dates during the Korean War, being used by the project 'USArmy'.

RE: big security hole
By codeThug on 5/24/2009 11:44:31 PM , Rating: 2
either way, i wish i had one

RE: big security hole
By Hoser McMoose on 5/25/2009 1:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
Windows Vista will be in Mainstream Support (new features, service packs and whatnot) until, at a minimum, April of 2012. It will then be in Extended Support (security fixes) until at least April of 2017. Note that these are minimum dates could potentially be extended, though not contracted.

Microsoft's support life cycle policy is fairly well documented:

The specific details for Vista are here:

As an FYI, Windows XP is currently in the 'extended support' phase of it's life. Mainstream Support ended last month. Windows 2000 has been in Extended Support for a while (Mainstream Supported ended back in 2005) and support will be fully discontinued in a bit over a year.

RE: big security hole
By DOOA on 5/24/2009 6:51:15 PM , Rating: 2
Big security hole(s)
As long as IT departments want the ease of support Microsoft will have security holes; remote assistance, remote desktop, scripted registry edits, automatic updates, etc. are all for ease of support. They also make an OS more vulnerable.
Check out QNX and why it is a secure OS. The QNX systems I set up have lasted longer than the hardware they run on and require no updates. Granted they don't have all the bells and whistles, but that is the trade off.

As for missing the point
I have seen no posts recognizing Microsoft's misguided UI changes.
Why is there such a big learning curve from Office 2003 to 2007? Because the new features were not an upgrade, they were the focal point. This is a bad idea in an office environment; let people continue with the old menus unchanged and add the features to them. I hate seeing the productivity loss in my employees as they train and discuss how to do things in Office 2007 they have already been doing for four years with Office 2003.

RE: big security hole
By Master Kenobi on 5/26/2009 6:08:39 AM , Rating: 2
I hate seeing the productivity loss in my employees as they train and discuss how to do things in Office 2007 they have already been doing for four years with Office 2003.

There's a difference between knowing how to do something and memorizing a series of clicks. Your employees are exhibiting the latter if they couldn't figure it out on the new system in 24 hours.

RE: big security hole
By descendency on 5/23/2009 5:42:05 PM , Rating: 5
The biggest security hole in any OS is called the ID-10 T error. Unsuprisingly, it is in all Windows OS, as well as the Mac OS and Linux based OSs.

The patch for this is still being worked on.

RE: big security hole
By Tsuwamono on 5/23/2009 5:46:10 PM , Rating: 3
also known as PEBKAC

RE: big security hole
By brightstar on 5/23/2009 7:03:38 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, I've never heard that one before 8-)

I found your ID in the parking lot yesterday, It was the biggest rock I've ever seen :)

RE: big security hole
By foolsgambit11 on 5/23/2009 7:05:22 PM , Rating: 2
Is that a reference to the ST-1?

RE: big security hole
By Pryde on 5/23/2009 9:05:53 PM , Rating: 3
hmm I always thought the biggest security hole was the user

RE: big security hole
By dastruch on 5/24/2009 3:46:13 PM , Rating: 5
We have an ID:10T error here.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki