backtop


Print 46 comment(s) - last by DkFFIV.. on Dec 3 at 3:18 AM

90% of new Windows consumer client installations to be Vista Home-based in 2007

Microsoft has lofty ambitions for its next generation Windows Vista operating system as witnessed by statements made by the company in early October. Today, IDC issued some new projections for Windows Vista including the notion that over 90 million units of the operating system will ship in 2007 worldwide. That figure far outpaces Microsoft's assessment of 67 million units in the first year of availability for Windows XP.

"After a long wait, the adoption of Windows Vista will take place almost immediately among consumers, while businesses will follow a decidedly more conservative adoption curve," says Al Gillen, research VP of System Software at IDC.

On the consumer side, Vista Home Basic is expected to garner 67% of Vista purchases while Vista Home Premium will account for 30%. The enthusiast-oriented Vista Ultimate will account for 2% of the product mix with just 1% of consumers choosing Vista Business for use in home deployments.

For businesses, Vista Business will account for 82% of Vista deployments while Vista Enterprise will capture the remaining 18%.

Overall, IDC projects that 90% of new Windows client installations for home users will be comprised of Vista Home Basic/Vista Home Premium during the first year. On the business side, Vista Business/Vista Enterprise will account for just 35% of new client installations during the first year – that number rises to 80% during the second year of availability.

But while consumers buying new PCs will pretty much be forced into using Windows Vista after the start of the year, businesses are likely to be a bit more discriminating. Businesses typically wait until at least the first service pack for a new Windows operating system is released before they do any large roll-outs throughout the company.

Gartner suggests that companies should spend as much as 18 months testing a new operating system before moving to large-scale deployments. With Vista being launched for businesses tomorrow, now is the time to begin the testing phase (if companies haven't already done so with earlier versions of Vista). "If companies do decide to upgrade the biggest barrier will be application compatibility - 80 per cent of your applications will work and 20 per cent won't work. The vast majority of customers we speak to are looking at 2008 to upgrade but they need to start planning now," said Frank Foxall of Windows migration specialist Camwood.



Comments     Threshold


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

Audio in Vista is SHITE!!!
By Enoch2001 on 11/30/2006 11:00:43 AM , Rating: 2
I can't use Vista right now because it renders $600 in audio cards useless. There is no hardware support for anything yet, and even Creative - who has the majority of add-on soundcards in PC's - are using a band-aid approach to attempt to get their cards to work in Vista.

All of you X-Fi owners? Paperweights in Vista.

My m-audio Firewire 410? Useless. Even my old Audigy 2 Platinum is...meh...

Until that whole thing is sorted out (if it ever is), then I'll switch.




RE: Audio in Vista is SHITE!!!
By KewlWhip on 11/30/2006 11:50:44 AM , Rating: 3
Vista does not release to the public until January. Many hardware manufactures are working with Microsoft to get thier certified before launch. Please keep in mind that Vista just went gold and that hardware certifications take some time.

Thanks


RE: Audio in Vista is SHITE!!!
By TomZ on 11/30/06, Rating: 0
By thecoolnessrune on 12/1/2006 9:09:50 PM , Rating: 2
Because we all know that beta and release candidate both means final product. Didn't the rest of you guys get the memo? O.o


RE: Audio in Vista is SHITE!!!
By Donkeyshins on 11/30/2006 3:30:00 PM , Rating: 2
If you are going to place blame, you need to direct it at the proper source - the hardware manufacturers who have not yet released Vista certified drivers. Case in point: I'm running Vista Enterprise RTM at work and it works fine with the onboard SoundMAX Integrated audio (machine is a Dell Optiplex GX620) as well as an add-in Philips Acoustic Edge sound card (PSC706).

Also, as KewlWhip stated, since Vista isn't available as an off-the-shelf install until January, there's time for Creative, m-Audio, etc. to fix their driver / software support for Vista. We saw the same thing when Windows XP shipped. Support should be there by the time you go to your local PC hut and purchase Vista.


RE: Audio in Vista is SHITE!!!
By TomZ on 11/30/2006 3:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
I agree - and hardware manufacturers have in the past been slow to release new drivers. But also remember that Microsoft is also in the loop, because Microsoft is certifying drivers before they are released. So it makes me wonder, especially based on the post by the MS employee above, if Microsoft is a bottleneck in this process or not. I don't think this is anything that has any real public visibility.


RE: Audio in Vista is SHITE!!!
By Laughing all the way 2220 on 11/30/2006 6:58:22 PM , Rating: 1
You know you can really tell the MS fanboys out there- but you can't tell them much- lol

Instead of providing DX10 as an update to XP I "HAVE" to buy Vista. Did you get that? I cannot play the latest and greatest DX10 games on my otherwise fat system with XP SP2!!! MS is MAKING me UPGRADE my OS just to play GAMES!
What an OUTRAGE!!! How can MS expect people to support lunacy? Just so they can make money? You know, that really makes me wanna go out there and buy my $200 copy of bloated, security hole ridden, all the advanced features stripped out, barely prettier than XP, copy of Windows Advanced- Premium-Home-Basic-Ultimate edition!

And what's worse is MS has already tested DX10 vs. DX9 and found it's way slower!


RE: Audio in Vista is SHITE!!!
By DkFFIV on 12/3/2006 3:18:17 AM , Rating: 2
Vista will have DirectX 9.0L which, from what I've read,will provide DirectX 9 API for Vista. This means studios will continue to produce DirectX 9 games until the majority of the PCs out there are running Vista (why isolate your market?). I am not too familiar with the differences between them (programming wise), so perhaps there will be DX10 versions of games and DX9 versions (much like how there were DVD limited editions of games while the majority were printed on CDs). Of course, if the programming is much different, I doubt studios would waste resources building DX10 games that couldn't easily be translated to DX9 (the more likely case would be that we'll see DX10 benchmarks).

From what I've read, DirectX 10 is offering a host of new features - of course they're not going to be blazingly fast off the bat. Developers need time to learn how to use it before it proves to be better. Just because on old technology works fine right now doesn't mean we shouldn't be looking toward the future.


RE: Audio in Vista is SHITE!!!
By msva124 on 11/30/2006 6:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
Um...Microsoft had the power to make Vista backwards compatible with 2000/XP drivers. Because they didn't (for security reasons, I guess), it's their prerogative to beg and plead with hardware manufacturers to write new ones.


RE: Audio in Vista is SHITE!!!
By Spivonious on 12/1/2006 2:45:28 PM , Rating: 4
Vista is not simply an upgraded version of XP.

The sound subsystem in Vista is completely brand new. Instantaneously every soundcard driver for XP broke. Sure Vista emulates XP's soundsystem, but only for basic playback. EAX does not, and will not work on Vista. Only soundsystems that completely bypass the Vista soundsystem (e.g. OpenAL) will continue to work properly.

Also, MS didn't make it compatible with XP/2000 because they decided to write a new OS for a change, rather than upgrading the old clunky NT kernel yet again.

Please, be informed before you post.


RE: Audio in Vista is SHITE!!!
By msva124 on 12/1/2006 7:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
My favorite putdown on the internet comes in the form of "<call someone out for being ignorant> <act ignorant>".

I don't think you've ever written a driver before in your life.


Meeting half way
By Outsider524 on 11/29/06, Rating: 0
RE: Meeting half way
By Rayz on 11/30/2006 3:40:58 AM , Rating: 5
I wouldn't label you as a fanboy, just uninformed. Unfortunately, a computer science minor and eighteen years as a Windows 'user' doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're talking about. Spending some time on Channel9 and listening to the arguments of people who really do know about Windows internals, would probably help out with this.

Your post is really just parroting what alot of other folk have been slashdotting for months. Congratulations, you've joined the biggest herd on the internet.

Windows has been secure since XP SP2; the problem has been that MS made it way too easy for their less experienced users to shoot themselves in the foot. A Firewall and a bit of common sense is all you need.

Hate to break it to those, but the PS3's 8 core CPU-that only uses 6 of them- is already outdate by Intel's latest offerings and Nvidia's new GPUs.

The fact that the PS3 doesn't use all the cores, has nothing to do with whether or not the Cell is better or worse than Intel/nVidia.

While I'm on the subject of Vista compared to OSX, I have to bring up the question as to why MS still even offers different premium prices for mildly altered versions of Vista? OSX has EVERYTHING in the same package, in fact the only different version of OSX is the OSX Server for obvious reasons. There's no Home Basic, Home Premium, Professional, etc. Seriously Microsoft where's the sense in continuing that trend?

OSX runs on a woefully small range of machines with a minimum specification defined by Apple. Vista has to run on machines ranging from UMPCs (don't ask me why) up to massive server clusters. An almost unlimited number of configurations that Microsoft has not even seen, let alone tested against. And let's not forget the small but extremely vocal group of hobbyists who like to build their own machines. So the different configurations are needed to make sure that folk aren't crippled by a minimum spec requirement.
Contrary to what you think, there are huge differences across the Vista line, some of which need a high end box to run on.

So why not just have a single pack at one price?
That is actually a very good question.
Here's my take.

Because people aren't that bright.

If you give them a single Ultimate package, they will attempt to install the whole thing on machines that couldn't pull the skin off a custard. Then they will complain that Vista is bloated and slow and the internet will clog up with the terminally clueless bleating the same nonsense. That would be bad.

Now, if MS prices the packages differently and sells them at different prices, then that will give people a mental clue that if they're going to fork out $399, then they'd better fork out for a computer that can match it. If you spend that much on an OS that comes in a nice dangerously black coloured box, then you are less likely to install it on that machine you gave your gran fifteen years ago.

OSX has EVERYTHING in the same package,

Except the ability to run on my choice of machine.
Actually Vista has everything in the same package too, you just don't know it.


RE: Meeting half way
By sviola on 11/30/2006 6:46:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fact that the PS3 doesn't use all the cores, has nothing to do with whether or not the Cell is better or worse than Intel/nVidia.


This is the only point worth disagreeing with you:

Both C2D and A64 are stronger processors than Cell, whose central unit is PowerMac.

The RSX is a 7900GTX modded chip and with the release of the 8800 family, you can say the PS3 graphics power is akin to the PC. This doesn't mean that the games on the PS3 will look worse than on a PC, as games are optimized for it's hardware, which in a PC they can't (although developers could release optimizing patches :) ). I think the PS3 will be successful in the long range, as the famous brands get released and the overall title quality improves.


RE: Meeting half way
By Clienthes on 11/30/2006 10:19:54 AM , Rating: 2
Your disagreement doesn't seem to have anything to do with what the previous poster said. He said that whether the cell used all the cores had no bearing on it's power relative to Intel/nVidia. This is a correct statement. Whether it uses one core or eight is related to, but not an indicator of, its performance relative to other processors.

Critical reading is a valuable skill.


RE: Meeting half way
By msva124 on 11/30/2006 6:54:45 PM , Rating: 2
You must not know about this thing in software called conditional statements.

if (machine is shitty)
{
install basic version
}
else if (machine is good}
{
install ultimate version
}


RE: Meeting half way
By msva124 on 11/30/2006 6:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
The pricing scheme is one of the many mistakes MS has made with Vista.


In Other News...
By ninjit on 11/29/2006 10:55:09 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Analysts from BS Solutions inc. say that 70% of all the analysis their industry does is just stating the obvious.
The remaining 30% being pulled out of their collective asses the night after a big press release, just so that they can get their 2 cents in


Seriously though, nothing I read above about Vista seems like news to me.

Are Analysts one of those jobs the world could really do without? Can someone explain the need for them to me? I honestly don't know.




RE: In Other News...
By Rayz on 11/30/2006 3:43:05 AM , Rating: 3
Quite.

Hard not to be a success when your product is the default installation on just about every PC sold.

... :-|


RE: In Other News...
By msva124 on 11/30/2006 7:15:25 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly I don't even think it is a real job. Otherwise it would be the only job in the world where you can be wrong all the time without being fired.

Analyst is probably just a generic term for anyone who wants to get their name in the news and has the slightest relation to the industry in question.


RE: In Other News...
By msva124 on 11/30/2006 7:23:15 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I was wrong. These places really do exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Data_Co...

Basically they don't get fired for being wrong all the time because it doesn't matter if they're wrong. Their purpose is to provide authoritative sounding articles to journalists, not to make accurate predictions.


Was it worth it?
By crystal clear on 11/30/2006 7:12:57 AM , Rating: 1
Ask yourself this question-

Takahashi: Why Vista may be last of its kind

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/busines...


A portion of the article goes like this-

Already, before anyone gets an official copy, experts are predicting Vista may be the last of its kind. Obsolete before it's out the door? Geez, we haven't even had a chance to open our wallets yet.

``Suddenly, the market changed and competitors started delivering technology at the speed of the Internet,'' said James McQuivey, professor of market research at Boston University. ``In some cases, they do it for free, and that's painful for Microsoft.''

The theory about the threat to the Redmond giant goes like this: Microsoft made Vista the old-fashioned way, as a single packaged product that it puts on a disk so users can buy it in a store and load it onto their computers. By contrast, rivals such as Google are creating spreadsheets and browsers that you simply download from a computer server, which delivers what you need to your desktop as you need it. If Google follows through with more offerings of free, ad-supported software over the Internet, Microsoft won't be able to charge a premium for its operating systems anymore. Nobody will need its big upgrades anymore.

Suppose this threat, or the one from the free Linux operating system, is real. Maybe Microsoft will have to issue smaller upgrades every year or so to keep up. You have to wonder if it is possible, or wise, for Microsoft to throw more money at any future project than it has thrown at Vista. This will probably be the last operating system from Bill Gates, who retires to do philanthropy in 2008. Was it worth it?


Unquote-
Food for thought.




RE: Was it worth it?
By TomZ on 11/30/2006 7:59:42 AM , Rating: 2
It's an interesting article, but wrong in a few ways.

1. Microsoft is already dribbling out functionality in "Internet time" for its OSs and applications - it's called Microsoft Update. My OS gets updates consisting of fixes and new functionality every couple of weeks. There is no additional cost for this service.

2. The set of requirements seen by OS software is still changing relatively fast. The last wave was "security," hence Vista, which required a lot of changes to the OS. Compare this to a spreadsheet or e-mail service, whose functionality has changed very little over the past 10 years.

3. Quality - When Microsoft releases an OS, it is very well tested (not to say perfect). Compare this to google's "Internet time" releases which are all, well, betas.

I do agree that offerings like Linux and OpenOffice.org do pressure Microsoft quite a bit to make sure they are delivering enough value to justify the price. That is a good thing, in my opinion, just like any other competition.


RE: Was it worth it?
By msva124 on 11/30/2006 7:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Already, before anyone gets an official copy, experts are predicting Vista may be the last of its kind.


Experts=Analysts=Idiots


RE: Was it worth it?
By Spivonious on 12/1/2006 2:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't the late 90s prove that ad-driven software is a fantastic way to go out of business?


RE: Was it worth it?
By Nekrik on 12/1/2006 10:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
Google?


RE: Was it worth it?
By Nekrik on 12/1/2006 10:34:44 PM , Rating: 2
Google?


Are you Vista ready????/
By crystal clear on 11/30/2006 4:53:29 AM , Rating: 2
This is for user like me & many more who are not IN A BIG HURRY TO BUY VISTA & PREFER TO WAIT.

Quote-
No Service Pack 3 Update for Windows XP?
Slip in arrival date to 2008 raises concerns that the next XP service pack will be eliminated.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,127645-c,xp/arti...

Read certain portions of this article-

# "The fear is Service Pack 3 will just get killed off," says Jeff Centimano, an IT consultant with Levi, Ray & Shoup, based in Kansas City, Missouri, who says that he's heard concerns from administrators since late last week, when Microsoft announced "preliminary" plans to ship SP3 in the first half of 2008, later than previously expected.

That puts the update within months of the early 2009 cutoff date for mainstream support for the XP operating system, and users like Centimano are now worried that Microsoft may not feel a Service Pack 3 is worth the effort.

"That's exactly how it worked out for Windows 2000," Centimano notes.

#Others see a financial motive behind the delay. "They're going to let users kind of sit there without anything new on XP for a while, because they want you to move to Vista," says Allen,

#"Microsoft is trying to focus more on trying to make a bunch of money than on providing users with fixes for their systems," he says.


Unquote-

*MS can push the industry to become Vista Ready,Vista Compatible,Works with Vista etc

but

*To push users to become vista ready/compatible etc by
choking XP support is too much.

*Human beings are not computer components or OEMs or ODMs
that can be made vista ready.


Whats the BIG HURRY???




RE: Are you Vista ready????/
By TomZ on 11/30/2006 7:34:38 AM , Rating: 2
I personally don't see any need for XP SP3. The primary benefit to an SP3 would be to roll together post-SP2 updates to make installation of XP by end users go more quickly. So it is about convenience/time-savings more than anything.

SP2 was different - it delivered a bunch of important security-related changes. With XP now shored up in terms of security, and Vista there to provide the most streamlined installation experience, I don't see any strong requirement for an SP3 release. And considering resources, I'd prefer that Microsoft pour more resources into Vista updates than work on XP SP3.


RE: Are you Vista ready????/
By xphile on 12/1/2006 8:41:27 AM , Rating: 2
You personally don't matter at all. The primary benefit of SP3 is actually no such thing - it is to keep business users up to date and happy, since business users will still 75-80% all still use XP by the end of 2007. It is nothing about convenience, but businesses pay far more in total income than personal users so the things you mention are far more simply side effects. So there is your strong reason. If MS stops its well publicised program of supporting its last OS fully for at least 24 months after a new release, businesses will lose confidence in upgrading at all, they need that time to test new versions before they roll them out en masse. Despite the hype, home users dont really matter as much to Microsoft as you'd like to think.


RE: Are you Vista ready????/
By KewlWhip on 11/30/2006 12:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
I am a Microsoft employee, my role with the company is a TAM (Technical Assistance Manager). I have heard of no plans to scrap XP SP3. Some reasons that SP3 may be delayed is that the development staff has been working hard on Vista and as I'm sure everyone here knows, our Vista launch dates have slipped a few times which in turn causes other deliverables to slip as well.


rant
By msva124 on 11/30/2006 6:41:05 PM , Rating: 3
Vista is crap, Office 2007 is crap, and .NET is crap. Where are the people who worked on Windows 95? Windows 2000? Probably rich and retired on a yacht, laughing at anyone who would think of buying these things. Transparency? Transparency, for god's sake. What a sad joke Microsoft has turned into. The young Bill Gates would have rejected eye candy, XML, and "ribbons" for the crap that they are. Now, like a great musician past has prime, he continues to put out albums, blissfully unaware of their mediocrity.




RE: rant
By Outsider524 on 11/30/2006 8:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
Well said msva124. And I know my previous post was a little scattered because I was addressing a multitude of issues, but just because my views are different than someone else's doesn't mean I'm "uninformed". There's no way to argue that Windows is as secure or semi-full proof as OSX, it just isn't close to it, even for "experienced" users. Go try and catch a virus, fatal error, or mass of spyware on OSX, if it happens, it's a VERY SMALL occurrence.

As for why Vista can't be released in one package, it's because of either a)MS's inability to optimize the code for even the "older" machines or b)MS is making an OS that's overly induced with eye candy (and not enough substance in my opinion) to run on older machines. Don't try to pass the blame on computer manufacturer's or consumers, they don't make the damn OS. Secondly, look at OSX, say what you want about how Apple has sole property of what computers the OS goes on, etc. etc., it doesn't change the fact that even with all the graphical effects, OSX can still run on a ten year old Mac. That's because they are capable of creating an OSX that is coded to run well on as many different systems as possible.


RE: rant
By Outsider524 on 11/30/2006 8:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well said msva124. And I know my previous post was a little scattered because I was addressing a multitude of issues, but just because my views are different than someone else's doesn't mean I'm "uninformed". There's no way to argue that Windows is as secure or semi-full proof as OSX, it just isn't close to it, even for "experienced" users. Go try and catch a virus, fatal error, or mass of spyware on OSX, if it happens, it's a VERY SMALL occurrence.

As for why Vista can't be released in one package, it's because of either a)MS's inability to optimize the code for even the "older" machines or b)MS is making an OS that's overly induced with eye candy (and not enough substance in my opinion) to run on older machines. Don't try to pass the blame on computer manufacturer's or consumers, they don't make the damn OS. Secondly, look at OSX, say what you want about how Apple has sole property of what computers the OS goes on, etc. etc., it doesn't change the fact that even with all the graphical effects, OSX can still run on a ten year old Mac. That's because they are capable of creating an OSX that is coded to run well on as many different systems as possible.


Vista!
By Radeon117X on 11/29/2006 10:00:37 PM , Rating: 3
Personally, if I had the money and the right hardware (DX10) by the time of the launch, I'd definitely get Windows Vista Home Premium. There are many great things that come with the new Vista platform. I really can't wait to try the new DX10 games and applications! However, im going to have to wait for a bit more funding to build me new 'next-gen' computer, and by then, there will be lots of new DX10 games out :D




RE: Vista!
By Pirks on 11/30/2006 4:53:00 PM , Rating: 1
there's no point in waiting for those DX10 games as they won't be around for a couple more years (Crysis is not a true DX10 title so doesn't count), but you can have the best games on an Xbox 360 now, like Gears of War. MS itself made sure Vista is a second rate system for games, and this Windows Games vapor they market is just for looks. I mean think about it - MS specifically buys out PC games and engines like UE3/GeoW or Halo 1/2/3, makes sure they run nice and smooth on consoles only (hey isn't that GeoW graphics close to a DX10 level ON A CONSOLE?? right, this is how it gioes these days) and then AFTER A COUPLE of years they MIGHT make a PC port. why the heck waiting for vista and dx10 and waiting forever if there are nice almost DX10 level graphics on Xbox 360 ALREADY, and more coming! Just look at GeoW screenies - would you buy a Vista to play that ugly HL2 thing AFTER THAT? you gotta be kidding...

IF and only if there will be some MAJOR EXCLUSIVELY-PC DX10 games in 2008-2009 timeframe (doubt they make anything decent earlier given the state and price of DX10 hw/sw at the moment) - only THEN it makes sense to buy Vista for GAMES. before that? it's a joke. right now a pair of iMac and Xbox 360 beats crap out of any PC game graphics-wise and work-wise. Crysis is THE ONLY answer to that and noone knows when this _DX9_ game coming, and it's not Vista only so... buying vista for Halo 2? hahahahahaaa - no, that's too funny, I gotta stop here


By crystal clear on 11/30/2006 6:33:27 AM , Rating: 2
03 November, 2006 02:33 PM EST
Microsoft sets 30 November for Business Launch of Vista, Office 2007
Posted By: Michael Silver, Research VP
There's lots of confusion around the various dates of Windows Vista and Office 2007. There are many dates to keep track of and they all mean different things. Here are the ones we're following:

Select and Open price lists: 1 November 2006 for both products. Anyone with SA on either product in effect on 1 Nov 2006 gets the rights to both products.

Release to manufacturing (RTM): Not yet announced for either product.

Availability to volume license customers: At least a week, but perhaps longer, after RTM.

Broad availability: Said to be 30 January 2007 for Windows Vista, this is when the product can be purchased by consumers and shipped preloaded by OEMs. Office likely similar.

Business Launch Event: 30 November 2006 for both products.

Consumer Launch Event: Will be another joint event, in 2007, but not yet scheduled.

What does all this mean? Although it's possible that RTM will be in December, after the business launch event, that's not likely because both are on price lists as of yesterday. It's more likely that RTM will be some time this month. Could it still slip? Sure. But at this point, that's certainly less likely.

What about Gartner's prediction that Vista would be late? In April, we published research saying that Windows Vista would not be broadly available until nine to 12 months after the release of Beta 2. Beta 2 was released in late May, a little earlier than we expected at that point, which means we would have expected broad availability in late February – late April. For all the press on the topic, it appears that Microsoft will beat our prediction by a month (if they meet their 30 Jan. target). We will congratulate Microsoft as they hit their dates.

Microsoft shipping Vista and Office 2007 is great for the company and an important milestone for its customers. We have to be a little cautious in warning people that Microsoft Update helped Microsoft get the products out, probably several months earlier than they would have been able to without it (see Steve Kleynhans's post below). So organizations should continue working with applications, including the forthcoming ACT for Windows and OMPM for Office, although they should expect a stream of fixes for the first few months after availability. Microsoft beat the expectations of many in the industry, so the rest of the ecosystem is still catching up. Make sure your critical vendors will support their products on Vista in the timeframe you need.

We continue to say that waiting for SP1 is a bogus milestone at this point – for two reasons: 1) Most large companies will not be ready to deploy by the time SP1 is available anyway (there is still too much complexity in testing and preparing), and 2) Because of Microsoft Update, you’ll have the fixes to most critical issues well before SP1 ships.

Source-
http://vista.blog.gartner.com/blog/index.php?blogi...




By TomZ on 11/30/2006 8:03:31 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, Microsoft Update makes waiting for SP1 an ineffective strategy. Why pick such an arbitrary point to deploy Vista - it makes more sense to decide when it is right for your organization or your personal needs and wants.


why should we upgrade?
By Turgon77 on 11/30/2006 7:48:42 AM , Rating: 2
I'm the asst IS mngr at a 20 facility company and fail to see any compelling reasons to upgrade to Vista. 2000 is still in wide use throughout my company!
We have made the change to openoffice for many of our new workstations. We realized that many of our users need only the basics in an office suite, and OO works just fine for most (just wish it ran a bit quicker).




RE: why should we upgrade?
By TomZ on 11/30/2006 8:10:57 AM , Rating: 2
It will take 1-3 years before Vista looks attractive to most businesses. That's the normal conservative business upgrade cycle for operating systems, so your statement is not surprising.

But I feel sorry for your users that are forced to use OOo. If I worked in a company where I was responsible for my own productivity, I would find it very frustrating to use that software compared to Office, just so the company could save a couple hundred bucks. All it takes is a few lost productivity hours in a year to pay for that difference, and there is no chance that OOo will outperform Office in terms of productivity any time soon. The software cost of Office is nothing compared to labor costs, at least in developed countries. Very short-sighted, IMO.


watch this space....
By johnsonx on 11/30/2006 12:25:12 AM , Rating: 2
Watch this space for clueless drivel from Beenthere and/or Cornfedone.




RE: watch this space....
By Pirks on 11/30/2006 4:40:07 PM , Rating: 1
yeah, they seem to be very late today - probably busy bashing MS in another forum


By poohbear on 11/29/2006 10:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
gonna actually get it when the mainstream DX10 vid cards are out and reasonably priced, assuming its not plagued w/ bugs. if there are lotsa bugs, we all gotsa wait for SP1.




Vista upgrade
By soydios on 11/29/2006 10:50:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'll upgrade to Windows Vista soon after it is released, most likely. But, I will dual-boot my system with Vista for most things and XP for games.
I won't be upgrading to a DX10 graphics card until R700 or G90; the current generation just draws too much power.




So much for the Aero interface
By PrinceGaz on 11/30/2006 11:16:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the consumer side, Vista Home Basic is expected to garner 67% of Vista purchases while Vista Home Premium will account for 30%. The enthusiast-oriented Vista Ultimate will account for 2% of the product mix with just 1% of consumers choosing Vista Business for use in home deployments.


So they expect 67% or a staggering two-thirds of home users to be using Home Basic, the cut-down version that doesn't even include the new Aero interface. Given that almost all new machines including those using integrated-graphics meet the requirements for Aero (DX9 compliant, 128MB), choosing Home Basic seems a very bad idea. The only reason I can think of for going with Home Basic is on new machines with Vista pre-loaded, where it will lower the cost of it slightly.

I think most users would be better off with XP rather than Vista Home Basic; the sort of people who might buy Home Basic either for an existing PC or with a new one are unlikely to have 2GB of memory, so XP will perform a lot better than Vista and still look just as pretty.




again
By msva124 on 11/30/2006 6:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
As I said before, the world "Analyst" in the headline of any article can be freely substituted with "Idiot".




"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer

Related Articles
Windows Vista Goes Gold
November 8, 2006, 2:00 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki