Print 87 comment(s) - last by phillychase.. on Mar 9 at 11:20 AM

The U.S. DOT isn't quite ready to make the transition to Microsoft's latest software applications

While consumers may be interested in making the upgrade to Windows Vista, Office 2007 and Internet Explorer 7.0, the federal Depart of Transportation (DOT) wants no part of Microsoft's latest software applications. According to an internal memo, "an indefinite moratorium" has been placed on performing this software upgrades to DOT computers.

The DOT currently operates roughly 15,000 computers running Windows XP Professional. The machines run a variety of programs including (but not limited to) Aspen 2.8.1, Capri 6.5, ISS 2.11 and ProVu 3.1.1. All four applications are known to have compatibility problems with Windows Vista.

"There appears to be no compelling technical or business case for upgrading to these new Microsoft software products. Furthermore, there appears to be specific reasons not to upgrade," said DOT chief technology officer Daniel Mintz. "Microsoft Vista, Office 2007, and Internet Explorer [7] may be acquired for testing purposes only, though only on approval by the DOT chief information officer."

The internal memo notes that the Federal Aviation Administration's 45,000 desktop computers will also be banned from making the upgrade to the latest versions of Microsoft software applications.

The DOT internal memo also notes that DOT is also open to looking at alternatives to Microsoft operating systems including Suse Linux and OS X.

"We have more confidence in Microsoft than we would have 10 years ago," said DOT chief technology officer Tim Schmidt. "But it always makes sense to look at the security implications, the value back to the customer, and those kind of issues.”

Comments     Threshold

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

not suprising
By TSS on 3/7/2007 10:15:41 AM , Rating: 3
It's really not a suprise that this or other departments would hold off with Vista. Every OS has its bugs that first need to be worked out (stop laughing people i mean the very serious ones at the beginning. like windows firewall completly blocking outlook 2007). Besides that, Vista's SP1 promises a few more features and is going to be released well within the time that XP's still very usable. Also, Windows server 2007(or 2008), which is designed to work with vista like 2003 was designed for XP, isn't even in the beta 3 stage yet. soon, but not yet.

stability is still an issue, a complementing server OS isn't out yet, new features will be added soon and security is better, but isn't what it's supposed to be yet (i'll bet all them hackers be honing their l337 skillz on vista right now).

basicly, 2003's still a (reasonably) good and stable OS for servers and XP still works very well. any compagny already switching to vista now would be crazy (save for the occasional tests adn a few PC's here and there to get used to it, it is the future afterall....)

RE: not suprising
By TomZ on 3/7/2007 10:36:15 AM , Rating: 5
I agree with your major points, except I don't believe that Vista has stability issues. The most significant reason for many businesses to not upgrade to Vista now would be the app compatibility issues. Once the app vendors catch up and release updates, this issue will be solved. This will take time, of course.

RE: not suprising
By Egglick on 3/7/2007 10:42:21 AM , Rating: 2
That, and the fact that Vista has higher system requirements (they're not going to be using the newest computers), and there really isn't any benefit to them upgrading.

What good would Vista do for the DOT?

RE: not suprising
By TomZ on 3/7/2007 10:46:06 AM , Rating: 3
I agree. The main benefits of Vista would be stability and security relative to Windows XP. Vista is also easier to administer than XP. So there are benefits, but app compatibility and hardware capability are factors that will delay the realization of these benefits.

RE: not suprising
By Mitch101 on 3/7/2007 11:17:49 AM , Rating: 2
Its not that the OS has stability issues its the applications running on Vista that are having the problems. It doesnt matter if the OS keeps running if you cant run the application without running into issue.

I guess one can compare it to backwards compatibility while most applications will work fine there are a number that need to be updated to work properly with Vista and the question becomes if the stability a Vista Issue or an Application issue because if it works on XP but not Vista then the real headache of who's fault is it and who needs to fix it comes up between the two.

RE: not suprising
By Samus on 3/7/07, Rating: -1
RE: not suprising
By KaiserCSS on 3/7/2007 12:23:08 PM , Rating: 3
Whoa now. You're automatically assuming that Vista is at fault. What makes you think that? Seek professional support if you can't figure out the problem. If you bought this laptop reccently, it should be covered under warranty, correct?

Worst part is I can't even install XP because they intentionally didn't make XP drivers for half the hardware in my laptop.

What kind of a laptop do you own?

RE: not suprising
By Russell on 3/7/2007 12:56:01 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, no shit. Laptops break down all the bloody time when they're new. That's why you get a warranty. If you really truly blame that on Vista then you're a fucking moron.

RE: not suprising
By Chernobyl68 on 3/7/2007 1:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
forgive what may be a silly question, but if vista needs activation in a similiar way that XP did (30 days)...did it get activated?

RE: not suprising
By Ryanman on 3/8/2007 1:37:18 AM , Rating: 2
lol man when it is preinstalled you do not need activation. I'd bet you my manhood this guy did not solder together a homebuilt laptop for Vista.
basically, you don't have to type in the numbers. You just have to deal with AOL free trials for 5-6 years.

RE: not suprising
By AstroCreep on 3/7/2007 1:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
...a complementing server OS isn't out yet...

True, but there are admin packs available to download to integrate into an Active Directory/GPO structure.

From FreshScoop.Com
By Mitch101 on 3/7/2007 11:12:21 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft will Rush Service Pack 1.

"However in the case of Vista with sales not being what they should be and mainly because of the lack of need or killer application to drive people to Vista. I would bet Microsoft is going to push Service Pack 1 out the door earlier than expected in hopes that it will cause some companies to say well the big problems have been squashed its time to install Vista"

"We all know marketing will get their hands in there and push for an early release of Service Pack 1 even if its not going to solve all the major problems out there."

RE: From FreshScoop.Com
By KewlWhip on 3/7/2007 12:02:12 PM , Rating: 4
We (Microsoft) are not “rushing” Service Pack 1. While Vista was RTM’ed in November, work on Vista never stopped. Unfortunately features had to be cut in order to get it out the door. So it’s natural for us to get those missing features into Vista as quickly as possible (read SP1). These aren’t the days of NT4 when all development was done behind closed doors. With each new OS 2000, XP, 2003, Vista, Longhorn the public has seen bigger betas than the previous OS. This helps us identify bugs and helps the public and large corporations shape the products by providing feedback around features (how they should work or how it could be better). These public betas greatly reduce the time it takes to get the product ready for RTM.

Also, please remember that the bug count at RTM for Vista was far lower than XP. Stability has not been a big issue with Vista it’s more around performance and application compatibility. SP1 will help both those areas as well as add features that we wanted in the RTM.

Chris (Microsoft employee)

RE: From FreshScoop.Com
By Mitch101 on 3/7/2007 12:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
So you dont think adding in those cut out features will break other areas of code or add in new problems with any other applications that can be run on Vista?

I like Vista but so far while the OS is stable it wasnt ready for release. By the time you reach SP1 that should have been Vista's release date. Sales should indicate that no one feels its ready for prime time or needed. This does make Service pack 2 timeframe the time to consider Vista as a mature and stable platform for the applications its going to run. Since Im sure turning on features that SP1 will enable will need patches as well.

The bug count on Vista is lower than XP quite possibly because there are fewer people adopting Vista because of the lack of driver support for thier existing devices.

I will agree the OS is stable but the applications on the OS are far from being ready for any coporate environment. What good is an OS with applications that arent ready?

RE: From FreshScoop.Com
By FITCamaro on 3/7/2007 1:25:30 PM , Rating: 3
Welcome to software development. Huge projects like an OS will always have features cut. Look at MMOs. Do they ever have everything ready at launch either? No. Any major software undertaking will almost always be behind schedule and have features cut to get it out the door. It has to happen at some point. So you get it working and stable with enough features that people won't complain too much, and you release it.

And driver support has nothing to do with Microsoft so stop complaining to them for companies being lazy and not developing drivers. HP, Dell, Sony, Gateway, Lexmark, Nvidia, ATI, etc all are responsible for coming out with Vista drivers for their products. Not Microsoft. And if the drivers are buggy, thats all their fault, not Microsoft's. And the fact is a lot of old XP drivers still work with Vista. I worked for a company that made fingerprint sensors testing them and our drivers and software that worked on XP and 2000 worked fine for the most part on Vista even during Beta 2 and July CTP. The only thing that caused problems were a few power state issues and needing to change things to support some of the new file structures in Vista.

The same goes for applications. Vista has been in development for years and in public beta for the past 2 or more years. If applications developers couldn't get their software working with it, thats their problem. Yell at them for it. Not at Microsoft for having a new OS out but no software for it.

RE: From FreshScoop.Com
By Mitch101 on 3/7/2007 2:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
There is a big difference between having a sword or a quest in a game not active vs something like Microsoft Visual Studio or Exchange System Manager not working properly on the release day of Vista. There are plenty of bug ridden Microsoft applications that have problems with Vista that will not be fully resolved with SP1 and will probably break other applications which are buisness critical by enabling certain features on SP1 that didnt make it in the initial release of windows. That is understood.

SP1 with Vista is what Vista should have been on release day 1. Plain and simple.

Instead Microsoft got it just working enough to push it out the door. You more or less said the same thing. I think they were hoping for some X-Mas sales but it was a bad move. Companies outside of Microsoft just werent ready and this was not Microsoft's fault but it is to launch without the needed support of the surrounding vendors.

Microsoft was smart enough to launch the XBOX 360 with 360 games. Imagine if they launched the XBOX 360 and it could only play a percentage of XBOX 1 games but no XBOX 360 games. Vista didnt come out of the gates with any wanted or needed application and lacked a lot of certified drivers. They basically launched without anything to require Vista. This was just a poor launch or basically a premature launch.

Now someone wasnt smart enough to launch Vista without some killer application. In some cases certified Video drivers from really the only 2 video companies in town. Now yes I realize this is an ATI/NVIDIA issue however Microsoft should have had them on day 1. And people are angry with NVIDIA and ATI for this. Even Dell cant sell top end machines with Vista because of it. This is a major reason for poor sales of Vista.

Now Vista on Service pack 1 is going to win over a lot of people because thats the way it should have launched. It will by then have Direct X10 and DX10 certified drivers. Something to get excited about. Current problem applications will have the majority of problems corrected but by enabling some new features that didnt make it into Vista from launch will cause additional problems. This basically translates to VISTA + SP1 = the correct launch of the product and VISTA + SP2 or VISTA + SP1 and serveral patches is about the time companies probably see the OS mature into what it should be.

I love Vista but it currently doesnt work reliably with the applications I need it to and I know Service pack 1 will help but wont eliminate all the issues of compatibility. Microsoft should have pushed out Vista's launch to Mid 2007. Its better to have been late than to cause as many problems as the OS currently is doing reguardless of it not being the OS fault and being the fault of the surrounding companies lack of support. However it is poor that Microsoft didnt have a WOW factor with DX10 and a DX10 game at launch with a DX10 Driver from a video card company. Even if it was a game instead of an application.

Certainly this time next year we will be praising Vista and how its far superior to Windows XP.

Take a page from 3D Realms and Duke Nukem forever. It will be released when its DONE. Not when its just able to work.

RE: From FreshScoop.Com
By TomZ on 3/7/2007 2:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm surprised you could say that Vista was rushed, when it actually took a very long time to develop and its release was delayed several times.

From what I can tell, Vista is ready for release. What is not ready are some device drivers and some applications (and hardware even, e.g., DX10). But you have to realize that many device manufacturers and application publishers wait to update their software until Vista is officially released. Therefore, Microsoft has to release Vista in order to get the ball rolling. The sooner they start, the sooner it will reach a point of acceptance and critical mass.

RE: From FreshScoop.Com
By Mitch101 on 3/7/2007 3:27:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yes its really a loop in some respects.

I think Vista is great and certainly a step in the right direction but I still believe that it was rushed by chopping out certain items to make it to deadline instead of refining it and making sure the hardware vendors and other software vendors are more up to speed on it and nearly everything they wanted in Vista is there. This way Service pack 1 can perfect the items instead of activating them then having to fix any issues they create.

Vista was released about 4 months ago and ATI and NVIDIA still dont have their act together. Not to mention the other companies out there still being so late to the game. ATI still doesnt have DX10 cards and I feel DX10 is the beginning of the move to Vista. But lets hope there are games other than Microsoft Flight Sim on the day of the DX10 party otherwise that will look pretty stupid too.

This really was a lame release of Windows despite its a huge step forward. You have to admit Windows 98 and XP had much more exposed launches that Vista. Is there even a Vista Commercial out there? Lame Microsoft you can certainly do better at advertising than this.

RE: From FreshScoop.Com
By Hare on 3/7/2007 4:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
But you have to realize that many device manufacturers and application publishers wait to update their software until Vista is officially released.

Just like iTunes that you flamed a while ago for not running without problems.

Btw. iTunes has been fixed and runs beautifully.

RE: From FreshScoop.Com
By TomZ on 3/7/2007 6:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I still think it is lame that some companies choose to wait until the release before they start. But what I think doesn't change how some companies operate - that's the reality.

RE: From FreshScoop.Com
By Ryanman on 3/8/2007 1:44:25 AM , Rating: 2
I'm gonna go with Mitch here. The difference between an MMO and an OS is gigantic.
Remeber that games age quickly- very quickly. As soon as you announce a game, the clock is ticking. Get it out quick, or it will end up looking horrible, the UI will be old, and your customers have moved on to the latest and greatest.
Why? Because Games are not the standard. Windows, as an OS AND as a monopoly is. Everything, from SP1 on, will have to be for Vista. Nobody cares about one game when what replaces it comes out six months later.
In effect, OS's SET the standard. Games live up to it (some) until a new standard is set.

RE: From FreshScoop.Com
By TomZ on 3/7/2007 2:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
So you dont think adding in those cut out features will break other areas of code or add in new problems with any other applications that can be run on Vista?

That's the point of regression testing (including application compatibility testing). You make it sound like some code will be changed in one area, and then shipped out. Microsoft doesn't work like that. SP's have to pass a very large battery of tests, in addition to the exposure it will have in the field in a likely public beta.
Sales should indicate that no one feels its ready for prime time or needed.

Retail demand is a poor indicator of the potential success of Vista. You have to look at the big picture. Most sales of Vista will be OEM and volume licensing. OEM sales track box sales, where Vista will replace XP as standard issue. Volume licensing will following the typical conservative IT lag, as we see with other software. For retail, the benefit of Vista is not obvious or not perceived to be strong. Retail OS sales are not exactly a typical Joe EndUser thing anyway, since most users are not up to the task of an OS reload.
The bug count on Vista is lower than XP quite possibly because there are fewer people adopting Vista because of the lack of driver support for thier existing devices.

Untrue, because bug counts are based on Microsoft internal testing plus feedback during beta testing. Vista had a much larger testing phase compared to XP.
I will agree the OS is stable but the applications on the OS are far from being ready for any coporate environment. What good is an OS with applications that arent ready?

I think you overstate the application compatibility problem. It is the case that some applications don't work with Vista. Most applications actually work just fine. I've got at least 50 applications loaded on my Vista machine right now that are working just fine, and most of these were written for XP or earlier.

RE: From FreshScoop.Com
By Mitch101 on 3/7/2007 3:35:49 PM , Rating: 2

While I agree with you the problem is Marketing wont. And Marketing will push you guys into pre-releasing again with SP1 because they want the sales to increase.

By all means keep up the good work but hopefully someone has enough guts to tell marketing go to hell were not chopping things up so you can have early Christmas sales bonuses again at the expense of Microsoft's reputation.

At least I can only hope Marketing doesnt push you to pre-release SP1 earlier than it should really be.

what a suprise...
By Randum on 3/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: what a suprise...
By treesloth on 3/7/2007 1:19:47 PM , Rating: 2
How is this anti-Microsoft? All they're saying is that Vista isn't appealing to them and that XP already meets their needs. That's neither anti- nor pro-Microsoft. Is it anti- to carefully evaluate and discover that a new product simply isn't a desirable update? Remember, they're already using Microsoft products. How anti-Microsoft could they be?

RE: what a suprise...
By enlil242 on 3/7/2007 3:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think it was meant by DOT to be anti anything, but the angle the article is taking kinda implies it is. (box with the ghost buster "no" sign)

Truth be told, I doubt any business, especially government agenices will be quickly migrating to Vista. Hell, my company still has not fully migrated to XP yet! I think Office 2007 is good only if using Live Communication server and Sharpoint or Exchange 2003+, otherwise Office 2000 / 2003 (no xp) are still robust. Vista really is for the home user with the bells and whistles and security. Businesses really have no need for Vista at this time unless some geekey CIO/CTO (you know you are out there) demand it. And if they do, more power to 'em!

RE: what a suprise...
By TomZ on 3/7/2007 9:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
I think the article is slightly anti-Microsoft, and for certain, the picture is clearly anti-Microsoft.

By Dg01 on 3/7/2007 3:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
They should switch to linux, much better

By Snuffalufagus on 3/7/2007 3:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, great idea, I bet all four apps work on linux right out of the box :).

By TomZ on 3/7/2007 9:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, government agencies running Linux. Kind of seems like a good fit, if you ask me. The government isn't exactly famous for their efficiency or effectiveness.

Kidding. I'm just kidding...

I can understand where the DOT is coming from
By JediJeb on 3/7/2007 4:25:52 PM , Rating: 3
In my company we still have a few machines running Win 3.11, not because we want to but because the very expensive equipment it is attached to has no newer software, if we upgrade those we might as well toss out a perfectly good piece of equipment that costs way more than the PC running it.

At home I still run Win2K, simply because it does what I need it to do so why upgrade, just a waste of money.

I still use Office 97, because there is nothing in the newer versions that I need, I mean how powerful does it have to be to type a simple letter or make a spreadsheet with a few columns and graphs. If I ever need it then I will upgrade not simply because it is there.

For those that badmouth Linux as an alternative, you should read the article over on HardOCP website on testing to see if it would work for the average person. Seems if you don't want to game or video edit it will do everything just as easily with way less system requirements.

One thing I dislike about the upgrades from Microsoft is like what just happened to us at work, Server died and we bought a new one, it came with the newest SQL server and now any of our Win2K machines won't work with our Information Systems software, so if we want to get back to where we were on useability we will have to shell out the money to upgrade half of our computers which were working just fine. What should be a simple server replacement will turn into a major expense for upgrading, I can only imagine what upgrading to Vista would cost us. It's all fine and good if you have tons of money to throw away, but when you run on a tight budget it hurts.

By TomZ on 3/7/2007 9:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're realizing that software needs to be maintained, just like anything else. The environment around the software is constantly being upgraded, and so you can't expect to have an application written once and never invest any money again to update it and still have it work in newer environments. It's just a question of expectations.

I'm glad you like Win2K and Office 97, but I'll tell you that someone running Vista and Office 2007 will run circles around you in terms of efficiency all day long, and they'll also have a little more fun, too. (I mean, as much fun as running Office apps can be.)

No surprise
By RodneyJason on 3/7/2007 10:27:23 AM , Rating: 2
Many businesses still run windows 2000, more or less XP or Server 2003. I don't see them upgrading anytime soon.

RE: No surprise
By TomZ on 3/7/2007 10:38:24 AM , Rating: 2
I'm currently seeing many businesses in the process of upgrading from Windows 2000 to Windows XP. Maybe this is due to the lifecycle of Windows 2000 coming to an end, and maybe because Vista is now out and many IT departments want to be on the 'n-1' OS but not necessarily 'n-2'.

Why not IE7?
By FITCamaro on 3/7/2007 10:34:49 AM , Rating: 2
I guess some of those tools are web based. If not, theres not reason for them not to use IE7 considering its free, works with XP, and way better than IE6. My company still uses IE6 only because IE7 isn't compatible with a few web apps we use. I'm hoping they'll soon make the upgrade. Luckily I'm able to get Firefox on my work PC. ;)

And while Office 2007 has some improvements, if they're on Office 2003, then yeah theres no dire reason to upgrade there either.

And just for the record, it's not Microsoft's fault those applications they use aren't compatible with Vista.

RE: Why not IE7?
By FITCamaro on 3/7/2007 10:36:34 AM , Rating: 2
And also, changing to OS X would incur even higher cost than switching to Vista and Office 2007 since they'd have to buy completely new computers and applications. Linux they can use the same PC hardware but they still will have to purchase new software if there's anything even available.

By CSMR on 3/7/2007 10:36:32 AM , Rating: 2
The DOT officer needs a grammar lesson.

By 05SilverGT on 3/7/2007 10:42:38 AM , Rating: 2
To last weeks news...

By DEredita on 3/7/2007 11:26:11 AM , Rating: 2
I'm waiting for Microsoft execs to issues some lame statement blaming this decision on piracy. That seems to be their battle cry these days whenever anything goes wrong.

By VIAN on 3/7/07, Rating: 0
By mindless1 on 3/8/2007 7:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
Donatello of Turtle

Why IE 7
By glennpratt on 3/7/2007 2:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why they aren't using IE7 unless

A: They have a crappy intranet that won't work with IE7.
B: They use an alternative browser

IE6 is a relic of a crappy internet past, it should be removed from as many computers as possible, as quickly as possible.

By lco45 on 3/8/2007 5:35:51 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft can't seem to hear the faint sound of the waterfall it's floating towards.

The reason Vista is such a non-event is simply that people don't use an operating system, they use the applications that sit on top of it.

Think about it, other than files, folders and networking, how do you use the operating system?
Dinky little games like hearts and 'purple place'?
Media player?
Sound recorder?
Web browser?
Outlook express?

These are all just applications, all of which are freely available in other forms (, media player classic, winamp, firefox), or perfectly fine in XP.

And all the other interesting features Vista brings have been so long coming that 3rd parties have already created them all (eg. Google Desktop Search).

As for security, the best way to be secure is application level security. Most of Windows vulnerability is caused by the embedded software. How many virii would proliferate without the O/S accessible address book in Outlook Express?

The future, as all the big players know (IBM, Google, and cringingly Microsoft themselves) is a basic O/S, with enough smarts to run a web browser, and all applications written to run in a browser (or perhaps an industry accepted richer client than current browsers, such as IBM's Workplace client).

Of course, this means that Microsoft is already in a position where they are scrambling to keep pace with companies like Google (and even Yahoo, with their YUI architecture), because the better the thin-client online applications get, the less relevent the O/S itself becomes.

Sell your MSFT shares and buy GOOG folks!


Not news
By Trisped on 3/8/2007 7:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
This is not news. It is well know that over 95% of companies will not switch to Vista unless they get new machines that come with it or SP2 is availed.

And just because the people in charge are actively viewing the value of moving to Linux or some other free OS doesn't mean there is any news there. I know many companies that talk about switching on a regular basis. They always decide not to though as software and employee training costs always out weigh any perceived gains.

Not news at all.

Poorly Written Apps?
By phillychase on 3/9/2007 11:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
RipleyAliens, you state that the compatibility issues involved with Vista are the result of poorly written applications. You also state that you're a System Administrator. So, you spend all day resetting passwords, monitoring web use, walking in and out of the server room in an attempt to make yourself look busy. I would bet quite a large sum of money that you have absolutely no experience with programming for Windows or any other OS for that matter. Each time Microsoft comes out with a new OS, the developer is required to learn new programming methods. In the past, we programmed for 8 bit, then 16 bit, and now 64 bit operating systems. Not to mention moving from older development software such as C++ version 6 to C#.Net. From DAO & RDO, to ADO.Net, from ODBC to OLE DB... You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I know, before I became educated, I was a System Administrator.

By Quiksel on 3/7/07, Rating: 0
Let's see...
By Hare on 3/7/07, Rating: -1
RE: Let's see...
By KaiserCSS on 3/7/2007 10:34:48 AM , Rating: 4
The DOT has nothing to do with the European Union. They make an excellent point though, one that I've been using. Windows XP is great. There is absolutely no reason to upgrade just yet. Windows XP still has some life in it. Besides, the DOT seems to be looking at compatibility issues:
The machines run a variety of programs including (but not limited to) Aspen 2.8.1, Capri 6.5, ISS 2.11 and ProVu 3.1.1. All four applications are known to have compatibility problems with Windows Vista.

Until those applications are compatible with Vista, I don't think they'll be upgrading any time soon. Windows XP has had a pretty good run, and it'd be a shame to throw out proven, working software in favor of new and unproven software.

RE: Let's see...
By TomZ on 3/7/07, Rating: -1
RE: Let's see...
By Zirconium on 3/7/2007 11:24:35 AM , Rating: 4
Your argument is silly. If everyone followed that, there would be zero progress in general, and we'd all be running some ancient OS version.
His argument isn't silly. A business, and someone who doesn't want to shell out extra money for something that isn't proven yet, should not be upgrading to Vista. Not everyone is in that boat though.

First of all, if you are buying a computer nowadays, odds are that it already comes with Vista, so you aren't spending more money than if you went with XP. Secondly, there are the enthusiasts who like fancy new things, and they will upgrade to the latest OS.

I and many other people do not fall into either of those two categories, and by the time I do end up getting a new computer, I'm guessing that Windows Vista SP1 will be out. I know that I didn't end up getting a new XP machine until after SP1 because my Win2k machines were running just fine.

RE: Let's see...
By KaiserCSS on 3/7/2007 12:14:29 PM , Rating: 4
Exactly. I guess he missed the "just yet" portion of the post. I'm not trying to cease progress here. I'm simply pointing out why the DOT isn't willing to upgrade. I can guarantee there are many businesses who are content with XP and will not upgrade for a while to come, simply because they are used to the old platform. A total conversion to Vista takes time and money, considering hardware upgrades, new software, training, etc.

Personally, I've upgraded to Vista and I like it. However, I still have a machine in the garage running 2000 and two others in the house running XP because they serve there current purposes just fine. The time will come to upgrade eventually, but for the moment, I'm content with what I have.

RE: Let's see...
By hubajube on 3/7/2007 12:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
We're not even talking about it here yet. We have 8000 users and some ancient, proprietary, crappy apps that barely run on XP. Vista will be a huge upgrade for us. In my shop, we're going to buy a copy and start experimenting with the apps we use in our department. We'll be ready when it's mandated.

RE: Let's see...
By TomZ on 3/7/2007 2:12:20 PM , Rating: 1
You guys are missing my point - there are benefits for companies in Vista - I cited them in my post. What is silly is to say that Vista has no benefits over XP, so even if there is opportunity to upgrade, why bother - just delay for the sake of delay. That's all I'm saying.

RE: Let's see...
By vortmax on 3/7/2007 2:20:11 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, but the OP was specifically talking about the DOT...and yes, it's silly for them to upgrade now. You're talking about companies in general...very different discussions.

RE: Let's see...
By TomZ on 3/7/2007 2:36:34 PM , Rating: 3
I agree, for the DOT it doesn't seem to be a good time to upgrade. But that is not really surprising - when did you ever hear of a large organization picking up an OS just a month or two after it was released? It doesn't work like that in the real world.

What I am saying is silly is the argument that XP is just fine and does everything you need it to, and that there is no benefit to upgrading to Vista. That is the type of attitude that stops progress.

RE: Let's see...
By Hare on 3/7/2007 4:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
Corporate launch was last year.

I somewhat disagree with you. Very few businesses have any reason to upgrade to Vista. There are hardly any benefits over XP and lots of potential problems. That's exactly why companies wait for a while and upgrade when they believe it's necessary (better compatibility, lack of older os support etc). Why should they upgrade just because something newer is on the market if the older OS is doing everything necessary and doing it well...

I'm running Business 32bit and in my personal use I've learned to really appreciate the new search (which is pretty much the only real improvement with the new filebrowser). It's about time MS catched up with Apple.

RE: Let's see...
By TomZ on 3/7/2007 6:05:15 PM , Rating: 1
To avoid re-stating my points, please see my post below.

RE: Let's see...
By Zirconium on 3/7/2007 5:47:41 PM , Rating: 1
I am running Windows XP and am planning to do so for a while longer. Why? Well, "XP is just fine and does everything [I] need it to." Why should I upgrade to Vista? What do I need to shell out $200-$400 for? Sorry if I'm stopping your progress, but there is no compelling reason for me or most people to upgrade.

RE: Let's see...
By PandaBear on 3/7/2007 5:55:35 PM , Rating: 1
Upgrading just for the sake of upgrading is silly. What is the benefit other than pretty graphics and "security", businesses would rely on better firewall and IT policy for that. Between compatibility and security, I choose compatibility.

RE: Let's see...
By TomZ on 3/7/2007 6:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
"Security" is not an abstract need. Vista is more resistant to viruses, etc. Therefore, IT help desks will receive fewer requests to fix/re-image users' PCs. In addition, Vista gives IT folks better control over lock-down, as well as more visibility to adjust settings and understand problems. I doubt there are any businesses that would not see support costs decrease and user productivity increase relative to XP due to these new Vista features.

But I agree that app and device compatibility are clearly requisites to the upgrade, since problems in this area would wipe out the other benefits.

RE: Let's see...
By othercents on 3/7/2007 6:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
You can lockdown XP just fine if you know what you are doing. For most companies this is a prerequisite and they would have already done this years ago. Also since Vista is unproven it is very possible that you will run into problems in this area making it a step backwards. On top of this not all websites work properly on IE7.

Now if a company decided to go with Vista then they certainly would have to upgrade a portion of their machines if not all of them. I know in my company 50% would have to be replaced, 25% would have to be upgraded, and maybe 25% would be fine. This is also not taking into 64bit version (which is supposed to be better security).

There are too many downsides and too many unknowns to push out a product like this at the beginning of it's life cycle. One of the companies I worked for was upgrading to Windows 95 to Windows 2000 in 2002. They didn't want to change something that worked until it was absolutely necessary.


RE: Let's see...
By Yawgm0th on 3/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: Let's see...
By TomZ on 3/7/2007 10:27:19 PM , Rating: 3
That's a load of FUD, and you couldn't be more wrong. Here's one article that describes the security features in Vista: You can probably google for non-Microsoft sites with the same information.

If you like, we can debate the importance and impact of the changes Microsoft made in Vista, but to state that there are no security enhancements in Vista is just simply wrong.

RE: Let's see...
By Snuffalufagus on 3/8/2007 12:22:33 AM , Rating: 2
are you making this up as you go along? :)

RE: Let's see...
By Calin on 3/8/2007 2:22:13 AM , Rating: 2
I just wanted to state that, while long-term support costs will decrease due to the operating system being much more resilient, short-term costs would skyrocket based on incompatible software.
If I must use in the company a cranky old piece of software, developed during 10 years by different persons, and which just runs on XP, upgrading to Vista will be a No-No. Remember there are places that keep one Windows 98 PC just to be able to run a certain application.

RE: Let's see...
By Nekrik on 3/8/2007 3:49:19 AM , Rating: 2
gack, keeping a Win98 PC around seems like a waste. Even with the older versions of the available VM technologies one could run any Win9x, NT4, or 2000 (or even XP with all the unused services disabled) with out any perf problems, mission critical in-house apps were great candidates for consolidating onto one hardware box.

RE: Let's see...
By frobizzle on 3/7/2007 9:39:06 PM , Rating: 2
TomZ, you are so much the Microsoft fanboy! How much are they paying you each year?

RE: Let's see...
By TomZ on 3/7/2007 9:54:24 PM , Rating: 3
Same as always: zero. I can understand why you might think that, but I think if you review my posts, you'll see I mostly am trying to counter FUD with facts. Since there's typically more FUD posts on Microsoft-related articles, that gives me more work to do.

RE: Let's see...
By Yawgm0th on 3/7/2007 10:01:39 PM , Rating: 1
You didn't cite any benefits to upgrading to Vista in your post. That was probably smart, because there are none. V

Vista does not offer any benefits to business users nor to most consumers. XP with SP1 did offer benefits over Windows 2000 and NT, and many organizations upgraded because of that. Virtually all Windows-based organizations chose to have XP on new computers, because it was almost perfectly compatible with everything. XP broke some DOS and 98 programs, but nothing that was needed (or, in many cases, even used) in the business world. It was a seamless transition, offering the same or better software compatibility, the same driver compatibility, and a better UI along with some improved ease-of-use and networking features.

Vista, on the other hand, breaks dozens - yes, I mean dozens - of popular applications in every market segment, from consumer to enterprise. It doesn't support thousands (again, yes, thousands) of hardware devices XP/2000 do. It increases costs while decreasing productivity, usability, and functionality. Currently, there is no benefit. There are a few theoretical benefits, but no tangible benefits to the vast majority of potential upgraders out there.

No one is saying "delay for the sake of delay." That would be silly. What is silly is to say "regress for the sake of progress," which is exactly what upgrading to Vista now is doing. To argue that Microsoft shouldn't have developed Vista would be like saying "delay for the sake of delay," and I don't see anyone in their right mind saying that. To not upgrade to Vista now because it offers no real benefits (in this context) and numerous drawbacks isn't some sort of philosophical statement about what should be done with software; it's just being smart.

RE: Let's see...
By TomZ on 3/7/2007 10:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
Benefits to busines would mainly be in the area of security. You can read my other posts, or you can look at this for more details:

Anyway, why are you so hung up on Vista drivers, when you can just load XP drivers in Vista? Works for me.

You can run many or most "misbehaving" older apps under Vista by changing compatibilty settings for the app (e.g., run as Win XP) or by running it as adminstrator. I've only got 1 app out of about 50 that won't run under Vista, because it uses an older version of FlexLM that misbehaves under Vista. I just run that app in an XP VM.

Finally, our company runs Vista on all our desktops. While I can't claim any revolutionary benefits, we do find it a little quicker and easier to use and to manage.

RE: Let's see...
By Ryanman on 3/8/2007 1:30:08 AM , Rating: 2
you guys are all banging on tomz just because he likes Vista.
I personally have no desire to upgrade- I built myself a $2.3k dx9 computer in january of 2006. So im not taking a 20% performance hit just so I can have a nice UI. Plus I am somewhat computer literate and do not want to have to deal with more than ONE step to putting a file into the recycle bin.
BUT once i sell a kidney, and get a dx10 card, and SP1 comes up I will, in all probablity, spend the moolah and finally get an OS on my raptor.
As for buisnesses, the small, nimble companies should get Vista and office because of what I consider to be UI improvemnts. I used microsoft office 07 for a while during the beta, and the UI is crisp and (after 10 minutes of self-learning) very easy to use. I have not PERSONALLY tried out Vista but I know for a fact my idiot friends like it- bugs and all. So depending on what kind of user you are, you can take it or leave it. All of you are assuming that these people are computer literate and really the majority of the public and office workers have no idea what their C: drive is.
oh, and on a sidenote, even if you disagree, can someone give me a decent rating? i don't want to type in that box anymore : (

RE: Let's see...
By TomZ on 3/8/2007 8:57:58 AM , Rating: 2
There's no 20% performance hit in Vista. The only place I've heard of Vista running slower than XP is with OpenGL games because the Vista video drivers are not mature.

Deleting a file to the recycle bin in Vista is the same as XP. The only time it is different is if you get a UAC prompt because you are deleting a file from a protected area. But that is rare, and UAC can also be disabled if you don't like it.

RE: Let's see...
By Zoomer on 3/9/2007 11:00:50 AM , Rating: 2
Well, let's see...

Secure Audio Path
User Mode Drivers
HDCP Support
Mandatory- signed 64 bit drivers
Aero for Laptops
Kernel Patchguard

Oh wait, these aren't benefits!

RE: Let's see...
By AGAC on 3/8/2007 10:09:33 AM , Rating: 2
I use to early adopt tech stuff, but I'll make an exception with Vista.

Compatibility is a must, sine qua non. Vista is not a requirement to anything but non-existent DX10 apps and games. So I do not actualy need to upgrade. Besides, having incompatibility with my current software stops me from wanting it.

It will take years until MS ceases supporting XP. When the day comes, there will be propper driver, software and hardware infrastructure to make the switch smoother. Hopefully cheaper licence prices too.

RE: Let's see...
By yangyoning on 3/7/2007 10:55:11 PM , Rating: 3
Your argument is silly. If everyone followed that, there would be zero progress in general, and we'd all be running some ancient OS version.
There are benefits to upgrading (even to Vista), however there are also costs and risks associated. This is the same as all previous OS releases, and it takes time for people to appreciate the value of the new version.

All the criticism that we currently hear about Vista is the same as we heard about Windows XP around 5 years ago. History is just repeating itself.

Well, an expected comment from MS worshiper who almost always install "the latest" MS product as soon as they come out (you can tell it by looking on almost his previous comment)


RE: Let's see...
By TomZ on 3/7/2007 11:19:15 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I usually run the betas, so really I run the software before it comes out. :o)

MS worshipper? I don't think so. I run beta software from lots of other software vendors as well.

RE: Let's see...
By AGAC on 3/8/2007 10:16:56 AM , Rating: 2
I think you are one of the few consumers who actualy bought Win ME back in the day. Tell me if that was well spent hard earning money...

RE: Let's see...
By TomZ on 3/8/2007 11:16:43 AM , Rating: 2
No, I never ran ME. Once Windows 2000 came out (I beta tested it actually), I made the transition from Win98SE to Windows 2000.

RE: Let's see...
By mindless1 on 3/8/2007 7:16:05 PM , Rating: 2
You entirely avoid the only thing that matters, whether the user(s) specific needs are better met by the newer product, or if the tradeoffs, penalities aren't worth the supposed gain.

You also ignore what progress is. Progress is not randomly grabbing something newer and claiming it is better merely because of that. Quite the opposite for most people thinking about Vista, it doesn't do what they need to, significantly better.

No, all the criticism isnt' the same, with XP there was one key factor prompting upgrade- that Win9x wasn't stable enough for many serious uses and 2K not accomdating to many uses (at the time). With Vista it is LESS usable, greater overhead, greater cost, pretty much every possible parameter is worse except security - but there is no issue there anymore, those who were using XP found a security strategy instead of relying on the MS lie of security (which they marketed, then refused to provide instead of loading down the system with more bloat that tells you after you're being actively exploited).

History has nothing to repeat with regard to Windows, it is a short term ~ dozen years at widespread consumer level and was a linearly expanding process.

It was expected and inevitable that windows would be usable for all the typical things and people would only need newer OS for special cases. Otherwise they would not buy the next version, which is what we're seeing now. Not a repeat at all, a peak mass instead.

RE: Let's see...
By Hare on 3/7/2007 11:29:43 AM , Rating: 5
The DOT has nothing to do with the European Union.
I'm perfectly aware of that. I was just joking because lately everything concerning MS has been EUs fault.

RE: Let's see...
By rcc on 3/7/2007 12:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
lol, you must have been reading different boards than me. Posters weren't blaming the EU for things happening at MS, the EU was getting slammed for doing things to MS.

RE: Let's see...
By rippleyaliens on 3/7/2007 2:21:44 PM , Rating: 1

Lots of young people i see. HENCE, when win 95 came out, same story.
When 98 came out, SAME story
Win 2000
Is vista worth it, YES. Meaning that the noob people, IE, first time users, kids, and people with the beliefe that if they click something, they get a free laptop. Vista is just the next stepping stone. All the stuff being written today, and last 2 months, are the exact same things written 12 years ago, when win 95 was released. No drivers, Poorly written apps, didnt work.
For the DOT Same thing, if those apps dont work, then they are poorly written. MEaning written for xp and xp only?
As a Sysadmin, i tell you what, Vista Rocks. Talk about lock down, and control. Ease to manage. BUt as a user, well, get the headaches ready.
1- App Support is first excuse.
2- Is steep hardware, but then again, 2gb of ram is $150?
3- Driver support for legacy stuff, taht even i, admit, WONT UPGRADE, lol
4- the killer in the corporate world. The END user TRAINING!!!!.. that alone will stump the bulk of the corporations looking to go vista, let alone office 2007.

I went to a computer store, and there was a customer there, running a quad core, system 4gb ram, and a nvidia 8800 gtx.. Fast as you can imagine. BUT, same stuff, new os, new interface, less knowledge about it, means very frustrating users...
We have about 8-12 months more of "Vista Sucks" until a killer app, whether game, or office productivity, comes out, and we all go, WOW..

XP is faster-- Well i would hope so, considering that it is 5 years old.
All my apps work on XP, {line above}
My system is slow, (having a computer isnt a reason to believe that your computer rocks, and runs anything)
My mac is better-- Great, so with every new OS; you need a new machine?? and hopefully, there are more than 5 titles of apps out there.
Linux is free- SWEET, you get a screen, but no apps to work with. (open office is free), yah, but you get what you pay for. Free as in beer, not like air.
Free beer means, cover charge to get in, cheapest beer in the house, massive headache, if you over-indulge. And possible throw up factor as well..
With the ultimate vista, with a suspected life span of 4 years, more like 6 eyars.. it would cost someone 20 cents a day to pay for it. ANd in 4 years, especially looking at the last 12 months, how much faster will video cards, cpu's, and hard drives be?

DOT will come around, as well as all the other federal gov'. Not because they have to, but because, it is a visious cycle, that always comes, every time a new desktop os hits. and takes years, for software vendors, to offer the $5000 patch for their mega app to work. For us old farts to be re-trained in the gui, and for young guns, to learn patience......

RE: Let's see...
By Zirconium on 3/7/2007 5:53:31 PM , Rating: 1
What? First you act condescending, saying, "Lots of young people i see," and then you proceed to write up a post like a retard on MySpace. I'm still chuckling over the Linux "don't drink too much free beer" reference, but mainly because it doesn't make any sense. I seriously hope you aren't the sysadmin at my company.

RE: Let's see...
By PandaBear on 3/7/2007 6:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
You idiot!

Win95 is a lot more usable than 3.1 so it is a must have upgrade (from 16 bit to 32bit)

Win98 isn't much better than 95b, but they pull the plug on 95 so you have to get 98 anyways, I stripped IE out of 98 and make it a faster, more efficient 95 (ever heard of 98 lite, noob?) Still, they stopped selling 95 and all the new PC is fast enough, so what the heck, upgrade is not that bad.

Win2K is based on NT, and it is much more reliable than 9x, so it is a logical upgrade candidate, plus USB support too.

WinXP is not as reliable as Win2K, tried it, downgraded back to Win2K and never look back, still have all the drivers and reliability.

Vista, I don't know what is the benefit since nothing new fundamentally is worthed upgrading to vista. Maybe if they have virtual machine and distribute workload/file server across a cluster of desktop for our office, but not as it is now.

As you can see, only 95b and Win2K are must have upgrade, all the others are there because people were forced to upgrade (98, ME, XP, Vista, are all incremental improvement that doesn't worth the extra expense, but people were forced to upgrade to).

RE: Let's see...
By othercents on 3/7/2007 6:38:53 PM , Rating: 2
For the DOT Same thing, if those apps dont work, then they are poorly written. MEaning written for xp and xp only?

Poorly written? Do you not understand that Microsoft changed the rules? They do this with every new OS they create. They change the rules. Windows 95 to 98 was easy. Everything basically worked between those, but when you switched to Windows 2000 or XP you are not running under the NT rules. Which basically says that you are not allowed direct contact to the hardware and you had to use API calls. Now in Vista they even changed the API calls and have been trying to remove OpenGL making it virtually impossible to run some applications.


RE: Let's see...
By crimson117 on 3/8/2007 11:03:59 AM , Rating: 2
Windows XP still has some life in it.

Saying it still has some life in it implies that it's dying. I'd say XP is as strong as ever, and still a better choice for new computers than Vista. I agree with the quote in the article, that there's absolutely no compelling reason to upgrade to Vista at this time.

You get... a pretty UI... some widgets... other than that I can't think of anything.

You lose... sound (if you have a creative soundblaster x-fi), gaming comp, application compatibility, $$ spent on the upgrade OS)

RE: Let's see...
By TomZ on 3/8/2007 11:20:16 AM , Rating: 2
Well, XP is dying as much as any "previous version" of software does. Microsoft's primary financial investment and engineering focus in their OS area will be Vista (and beyond), so you're probably not going to see much more added to XP except for security patches. Device manufacturers and software application developers will be focusing primarily on Vista for their next-gen stuff, so you'll slowly see XP left behind. It will happen slowly, but it will happen.

"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

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