Print 139 comment(s) - last by BAFrayd.. on Jul 4 at 5:03 PM

While its hardware support for Vista continues, Intel will not adopt Vista at its facilities, according to reports; Microsoft extends XP support to 2014

Intel, the world's largest microprocessor manufacturer, has stuck with operating system maker Microsoft through good times and bad.  The pair have worked closely together one every modern Windows release and have even shared some common unpleasant experiences -- like being subjected to Federal Trade Commission investigations.

However, times have changed and suddenly, according to inside reports Intel has shockingly snubbed Microsoft's flagship product, Windows Vista.  Intel, which has over 80,000 employees with workstations, will not change its computers over to Vista.  This marks the first time that Intel would have bypassed a major Windows generation, if the reports from the key inside source hold true.

While Intel's acceptance or rejection may be a largely symbolic blow, it is part of a far broader trend of companies refusing to adopt Windows Vista, discussed previously here at DailyTech.  While consumer adoption has languished slightly due to some complaints about compatibility, features, and resource consumption, these problems are exponentially greater in the business world, which operates largely on somewhat antiquated hardware.

A lengthy analysis by Intel's internal technology of the costs versus benefits of Vista adoption led to the decision.  According to the insider, who request anonymity due to possible damage to Microsoft and Intel's relationship, the conclusion drawn was that the cost of expensive hardware upgrades to cope with what some call Vista's "bloat" or high memory, CPU, and graphics demands would simply be too costly for the small benefits provided.

Said the insider, "This isn’t a matter of dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista."

An Intel spokesman did not acknowledge the reports, but refused to directly deny them either.  He said Vista was seeing very limited deployment within certain company groups, but as a whole was not currently being adopted.

So much for "Wintel" said some.  The term was coined in the early days of the PC industry, and since both Windows and Intel have been nearly synonymous with the personal computer.

Word of the rift first broke on the sardonic British tech news site The Inquirer and has since been covered by major news outlets, including the New York Times.

The Times points out aptly that Intel may change its mind at some point.  Steve Ballmer, Microsoft CEO, regularly meets with Paul Otellini, Intel’s chief executive, and Ballmer is known both for being a good salesman and for his penchant for forceful aggression.

David Smith, a Gartner analyst, says Intel and other company's rejection of Vista is not wholly abnormal -- there is a typical waiting period before next-gen OS adoption.  However, Vista, he says has almost passed that period and is troublingly receiving little support.  He states, "But by 18 months, you’d expect to see a significant uptake, and we haven’t seen that.  There’s not much excitement."

In an average generation, according to Gartner, 30 percent of customers skip the OS.  That number will be much higher for Vista, according to Gartner.  Gartner is also advising its only clients against Vista adoption.

With 140 million Vista copies worldwide, the OS is by no means a failure.  However it’s failed to renew the enthusiasm engendered by Windows XP.

Windows XP will be discontinued at the end of the month, though its popularity remains.  PC makers are capitalizing on strong sales through loopholes and will continue to sell XP systems after, but likely at a markup.

Microsoft has responded to the strong demand by extending the XP Home and Media Center support lifespan by 5 years.  Until now the scheduled cutoff date was January 2009.  The extension will last till May 2014.  The extension means that Microsoft will continue to deliver non-security upgrades for 5 more years. XP Pro had already received a similar extension.

Some see the move as an acknowledgement of Vista’s struggles.  Microsoft gave no official explanation for its decision to extend support.

Microsoft hopes to regain is vigor with the release of Windows 7, which is slated to go on sale around holiday season 2009.  In the meantime it is left to lick its wounds, particularly the most recent painful one in the form of a snub from a trusted friend.

Comments     Threshold

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

So is Vista's adoption rate similar to XP's?
By Pirks on 6/26/2008 3:12:00 PM , Rating: 3
People say XP was all the same, however there are also statements like "business adoption rate was much faster for XP than for Vista".

Was it exactly the same with XP?

Anyone with reliable numbers/statistics?
Maybe some links too?

By Kyanzes on 6/26/2008 3:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft surely forseen this. They had to be aware that they wouldn't be able to achieve similar success as they have with the Win9x->W2K transition. Maybe if they never implemented multicore support in XP (talking about multi core not multi CPU).The only seriously exploitable change in sight that seems significant enough (and I know about) that would have provided a perfect opportunity for Microsoft to release a new OS is the mass transition to multicore.
A much lesser one is ofc DX10. But frankly I don't see many people I know taking the bait.

RE: So is Vista's adoption rate similar to XP's?
By Screwballl on 6/26/2008 3:52:13 PM , Rating: 4
Being a tech in the field (sorry no links or numbers) since XP was simply a kernel update over 2000, it was much easier to switch to XP on the commercial and corporate level so the software still worked in most cases.
Win2000 was NT kernel 5.0 and XP is 5.1
XP SP3 is more like Win2000 SP8
Vista is a brand new kernel version 6.0 and Windows Vienna/7 will be kernel version 7.

Using the same line of reasoning, Windows 7 will also have a slow commercial/corporate adoption rate since it will also have a new kernel. Although if they have built in Virtualization, there should be a way to get an XP based application to work properly... that is if they do it right with the modular approach in W7.

By Spivonious on 6/26/2008 4:08:48 PM , Rating: 5
Although from all accounts it seems Windows "7" is more of an update to Vista, so wouldn't it be 6.1? I'm curious what the official version is. Any MS employees posting here to shed some light?

By pauldovi on 6/26/2008 4:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 7 uses NT6.

RE: So is Vista's adoption rate similar to XP's?
By BikeDude on 6/26/2008 4:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, come on... What software still doesn't work with Vista?

At least the old debate concerning Win95 has died. The industry used to be worried about all those businesses that refused to upgrade to Windows 2000 (and later XP), because they were perfectly "fine" with Win9x.

Vista adoption isn't as important as getting people off Win9x/ME (or Win 3.x).

By headbox on 6/26/2008 4:43:37 PM , Rating: 4
The audio/video/3D field has been very slow to adopt Vista. Hardware drivers for a lot of pro gear is still in the "beta" stage. Most of the entertainment industry uses Macs anyways, but those who use PCs are on XP or Linux.

By VooDooAddict on 6/26/2008 4:51:18 PM , Rating: 3
Try working with international subsidiaries in "emerging markets" and you'll see that the fight to get Win9x off biz machines is still going strong.

RE: So is Vista's adoption rate similar to XP's?
By CyborgTMT on 6/26/2008 5:21:13 PM , Rating: 2
Just for some reference, I work for a company that has over 30K locations around the world with more than $20B in revenue per year. All of our point of sales terminals are run on DOS based software and each location's administration systems are all running win98. The central and regional offices are on a mix of XP, win98, and linux.
It's hard enough to keep the systems communicating properly as it is. Vista will never be implemented outside of some corporate suit's personal pc.

By EricMartello on 6/26/2008 5:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
All of our point of sales terminals are run on DOS based software and each location's administration systems are all running win98. The central and regional offices are on a mix of XP, win98, and linux.

Your company revels in obsoleteness. :O

RE: So is Vista's adoption rate similar to XP's?
By mindless1 on 6/26/2008 8:35:01 PM , Rating: 5
Basic common sense - change things when it's needed, not just on a whim.

By The0ne on 7/1/2008 10:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think he even understands. I don't think he understands why a desk clerk still hangs on to her old typewriter or city councils relying on old voting systems. Oh well.

RE: So is Vista's adoption rate similar to XP's?
By Parhel on 6/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: So is Vista's adoption rate similar to XP's?
By CyborgTMT on 6/26/2008 6:51:57 PM , Rating: 4
When I'm debugging network conflicts, reloading the system software, and configuring the terminals for the different locations I think I know that we're using MS-DOS based dummy terminals.

RE: So is Vista's adoption rate similar to XP's?
By CyborgTMT on 6/26/2008 7:06:27 PM , Rating: 2
I do want to note that my previous employment was in the automobile industry where we were using a horrible UNIX based system. Windows software circa 1999 is a vast improvement from my stand point.

RE: So is Vista's adoption rate similar to XP's?
By rtk on 6/27/2008 1:16:20 AM , Rating: 2
FAR more you were looking at a mainframe through a terminal, most likely an as400.

By The0ne on 7/1/2008 10:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I believe so. Large companies I've worked for in the past are still using these for their product data management. Some have a mix of old and new but the core is usually AS400 variant.

RE: So is Vista's adoption rate similar to XP's?
By mindless1 on 6/26/2008 8:38:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's not at all unlikely. Think about it, there is no compelling reason to use an OS which is based upon supporting things a POS terminal doesn't need, particularly if it's not going to use the GUI from such an OS.

Most terminals use DOS or embedded RTOS

By quickk on 6/27/2008 1:15:27 AM , Rating: 2
Ha! I'm glad you specified the meaning of your acronym. I would of thought "piece of..." otherwise!

By jamesbond007 on 6/27/2008 12:33:53 AM , Rating: 2
I would agree with this. I could easily see a COBOL-based system running the POS units. (Point of Sales)

By Ryvist on 6/26/2008 10:59:57 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, most systems that appear with a DOS like front end are actually running a COBOL backend. Heck, even the brand new Register systems at one of the US based upscale department stores is built with a .NET front end and COBOL backend. There are only 2 COBOL companies left in the world, and I previously worked for one in in the support group. Almost every fortune 500 uses COBOL with extensions to J2EE and .NET for a slick front end. You don't need a completely new OS for using the latest and greatest technology to enable such needs.

its the office paper pushers that need to access some of the more mondane systems that are oftetn stuck on an old OS due to custom built thick clients that have no continued support from the original developers/software companies.

RE: So is Vista's adoption rate similar to XP's?
By Parhel on 6/26/2008 5:34:33 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, come on... What software still doesn't work with Vista?

Visual Studio 2005 for one. According to MS, it's a permissions issue, but none of the "fixes" work without breaking literally everything else on your system. Then, they said it was fixed with SP1, but it still isn't. So if you're a developer you have two choices: stick with XP or move everything over to Visual Studio 2008.

RE: So is Vista's adoption rate similar to XP's?
By Calin on 6/27/2008 2:34:24 AM , Rating: 2
Visual Studio 2003 for another.
What about Vista with default driver (packed on Vista) on a TNT2 M64 board... You'd think that Freecell would be safe (1.5G RAM, P4 2800 with hyperthreading). Nope, it's horribly slow, much below the point where it's playable (not to mention pleasantly playable)

RE: So is Vista's adoption rate similar to XP's?
By Calin on 6/27/2008 2:47:33 AM , Rating: 2
People claim games are unplayable at 20 frames per second - yet, in this case Freecell is running at less than 20 frames per minute
Piece of S... Vista

By just4U on 6/27/2008 11:02:30 AM , Rating: 2
Or just extremely outdated hardware from circa 1998.. A TNT2?

RE: So is Vista's adoption rate similar to XP's?
By Boomerz on 6/27/2008 7:06:35 PM , Rating: 2
When did you get your computer 1999? Pentium 4's are horrible and TNT2 is from 1999. Go back and use Windows 98 I'm pretty sure it'll run it much smoother. I like using gaming as an example like I don't expect to be able to run Quake 4 on a machine made to run Quake 2.
Computers are insanely cheap nowadays just make sure you are running a decent graphics card you can get one for like 50 bucks from Newegg. If you are using a desktop you should not be caught dead using integrated graphics.

By Wyatt Epp on 7/2/2008 7:11:58 AM , Rating: 2
Replies like this miss the point. In what world should 2.8 GHz, 1.5 GB, and 250 MT not be enough to load an OS, render a desktop to a monitor, and play a simple game? It is absolutely unfathomable to me that the machine as described is unable to do so.

And if we take it back into context with the article, multiply the cost of "a decent graphics card you can get one for like 50 bucks from Newegg" and-- let's just say that since they're Intel, they get a really good deal; let's say $100 for the "Business" version of Vista-- by at least 80,000 machines, and suddenly the math is very much against you. Could you really justify the twelve-million dollars (plus labor) you would spend on this? I'm not sure what Intel has in their offices exactly, but I can almost assure you that Intel's machines probably have Intel processors, Intel motherboards, and Intel IGPs (that are not classically fast). Unless you think Intel would go to the trouble of taking engineering and fab space for a limited run of discrete AGP GMA Xxxxx cards, you know, just for kicks, they're going to need a general upgrade all around. How much do you suppose that would cost? (Even if it wuld cost less, I wonder if Intel would really buy, in bulk, more than 80,000 of a competitor's outdated parts? I'm not thinking it any more likely than giving engineering the weekend assignment of putting an X4500 on a PCI-E board.)

Now, as I said, I don't claim to know what Intel actually has at each employee's desk; but if the other testimonials tell you anything (and they have parity with my own experience), this scenario isn't that far-fetched at all.

By The0ne on 7/1/2008 10:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
I just had to share my experience with the Vista games too. these games, well nice, are slow when graphics are bumped up. This is especially true of Chess. It's slow even on my q6600, 4Gig, 8800GTS setup. Compare that to running FFXI in four separate windows in high graphics.

By BikeDude on 6/30/2008 5:10:31 AM , Rating: 2
TNT2 M64 board...

nVidia stopped making drivers for these a long time ago. You can still download the old drivers, but AFAIK nVidia simply dropped support in new drivers.

So you're probably using a generic SVGA driver that utilize absolutely no form of acceleration in your graphics card. Of course it doesn't barely move! I bet typing "DIR" in the command line takes ages to scroll!

I am sorry, but this is absolutely not Vista's fault! This is your fault for buying hardware from a bunch of dishonest thugs. nVidia's executives belongs in jail. (My current card is based on the 7800GTX -- time for an upgrade, and this time I'll choose AMD)

(MS' operating systems include drivers from the OEMs. MS do not make hardware drivers, except for generic ones that work across all cards and are there only as a last emergency resort -- AFAIK the TNT2 isn't even documented, so only nVidia can make drivers for these cards anyway)

But OK, you guys bested me. There is obviously stuff that doesn't run with Vista. However, how many business PCs are equipped with old nVidia chips? How many developers stick with the old version of Visual Studio? (I use Delphi most of the time, but I have VS2008 installed as well)

By Bostlabs on 6/27/2008 4:55:40 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm.. Running Vista Ultimate and Visual Studio 2005 on my home PC. The fix worked fine for me.

By jeromekwok on 6/26/2008 10:02:01 PM , Rating: 2
I think Intel is looking for Vista 64-bit as their CPUs are 64-bit ready for some time. More future proof for 4GB+ apps.

Sometimes it is difficult to find Vista 64-bit drivers for old peripherals. So it is going to take more money for little benefits.

I don't remember when I was "fine" with Win9x. I hated to see BSOD everyday and NT4 quickly became default OS booted.

By Aloonatic on 6/30/2008 11:53:49 AM , Rating: 2
Acrobat v4 doesn't work too well and we love that here. It's perfect for what we do.

The scanner drivers and software doesn't work too well either as our machines are rather old but very reliable.

I guess we could replace our production scanners, Kodak would be very happy I'm sure at a few thousand quid each, just to have that lovely see through interface that most people here would turn off to make their machine look like win2000 :)

Oh, and our warehouse management database tools don't work with Vista either because they require a mapped network drive and that has changed somehow in Vista??? :-s

Then there's those little productivity tools that we find indispensable such as page counters and bulk file re-namers, which are rather hit and miss when it comes to compatibility.

We do write the odd letter from time to time though, so Word works OK I guess? :)

By The0ne on 7/1/2008 10:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
You have got to be kidding me.

RE: So is Vista's adoption rate similar to XP's?
By bertomatic on 6/26/08, Rating: -1
By jonmcc33 on 6/26/2008 7:49:27 PM , Rating: 1
FYI, Windows 7 is based off of Windows Vista.

By Boomerz on 6/27/2008 7:09:42 PM , Rating: 1
The hardware requirements are the same as Vista.

RE: So is Vista's adoption rate similar to XP's?
By Samus on 6/27/2008 5:27:30 AM , Rating: 3
Until now, Windows NT had been getting better and better.

Windows 2000 was a milestone and is still largely in use today. I have clients that use Windows 2000 Workstation and Server and there is no compelling reason to upgrade (aside from Microsoft no longer supporting Windows 2000 Workstation.)

Then Windows XP came out and it was a tough sell because Windows 2000 was so good, but Windows XP was an improvement none-the-less as it had a far better 'use-ability' and wasn't much slower than W2K (it could even be reverted to Windows 2000/Classic GUI)

Vista is a tough sell because frankly, WindowsXP is exceptionally good. The backlash toward Vista is a testament to how good XP really is.

By just4U on 6/27/2008 11:05:43 AM , Rating: 3
Well, longevity will do that to a OS to I think. It's partially the fact that XP has been in use for so long so it's highly compatable with programs out there.

Could this hurt future service packs?
By phatboye on 6/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Could this hurt future service packs?
By Screwballl on 6/26/2008 3:31:39 PM , Rating: 5
I fear that MS will avoid making the mistake of the long development cycles for future service packs and instead focus more on bringing out entirely new OS versions because of all of this which will suck for us consumers.

Welcome to Apple marketing department. Your first task is to convince people that this is not a service pack, it is an "OS upgrade". They will be more than happy to pay exorbitant amounts of money for it.

By nitrous9200 on 6/26/2008 6:37:27 PM , Rating: 4

Yes indeed, 300 new features including:
Printable Font Book, New Fonts, Arabesque Screen Saver, Shell Screen Saver, Word of the Day Screen Saver, Movies Widget in Dashboard, Japanese-English Dictionary (and Japanese support! woohoo!), Russian, Polish, and Portuguese localization, Time Skip in DVD Player (Skip ahead or skip back five seconds)...and don't forget that lovely new background!

RE: Could this hurt future service packs?
By Pirks on 6/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Could this hurt future service packs?
By michal1980 on 6/26/2008 8:52:31 PM , Rating: 3
expect with a win os you update once every 6 years, with a mac os its a 100 bucks a year.

By Pirks on 6/27/2008 5:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
with a mac os its a 100 bucks a year
Mac OS 10.5 was released 2.5 years after 10.4

The price of the upgrade was $130 as usual.

This makes it about $50 a year instead of your "100 bucks a year".

See, you only lied by doubling the price, that's not too bad for a clueless Windows user. I saw much worse Apple bashing lies here ;-)

RE: Could this hurt future service packs?
By Icelight on 6/27/2008 9:24:33 AM , Rating: 3
Exorbitant? Like Vista's $400? See Vista prices here ->

Yes, because everyone has to shell out $400 for Vista. It's certainly not like there are lesser priced versions of the OS. Microsoft also releases new retail versions every year, at $400, instead of allowing all customers to download the upgrades for free.

RE: Could this hurt future service packs?
By just4U on 6/27/2008 11:27:19 AM , Rating: 2
What I don't get is why everyone constantly points out the cost of the Ultimate Version. Most would either go business or premium which is $122 for the OEM variant.

RE: Could this hurt future service packs?
By Pirks on 6/27/2008 5:36:23 PM , Rating: 1
why everyone constantly points out the cost of the Ultimate Version
Because we are trying to compare equal things - two full versions of OSes. We are trying to do a fair comparison here, got it? Fair comparison means taking FULL, not crippled version of the OS, and comparing it with the full version of the competing OS. Are you intelligent enough to understand this SIMPLE thing?

RE: Could this hurt future service packs?
By just4U on 6/28/2008 1:34:54 AM , Rating: 2
All things being equal If your going to compare .. it should be the one(s) most widely adopted, Not some overpriced specialty version that 95% of Vista users DO NOT own.

By Pirks on 7/2/2008 1:45:23 PM , Rating: 2
Who cares if most people own crippled version of the OS? If we do a fair comparison - we compare full versions. That's $210 for Mac OS + iLife vs $400 for Vista Ultimate. I chose Vista Ultimate Retail because I want to preserve the freedom of moving the OS between computers like you can do with Mac OS. Vista Ultimate Upgrade - I'm not sure this one can be moved between PCs as easily. What happens if you upgrade OEM "fixed-to-PC" version of Windows XP? Think about it.

RE: Could this hurt future service packs?
By johndiii on 7/1/2008 7:49:19 AM , Rating: 2
By "equals" I'm assuming you're trying to foist off the lie that Mac OS comes with the software you like to use. iPhoto, iDVD, iMovie, Garage Band? It does not. You get those if you buy a Mac. But you do not get those if you buy the OS and you do not get full version upgrades of them for free, either. You must repurchase the iLife suite when new full versions come out. I purchased a used mac from a local church dirt cheap with no hdd in it. I put a hdd in it and legally went to apple and purchased OSX (10.4 at the time). Fortunately I was working for a University at the time and got the education discount. However, I was then sadly disappointed to find out that I did not have any of that other multimedia software and would have to purchase iLife separately for an additional cost. So Vista Ultimate is not the same is buying Mac OS X that does not come pre-loaded on your Mac system.

By Pirks on 7/2/2008 1:33:37 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, you can add iLife price to Mac OS price, $130 + $80 and you get $210 - still about half a price of Vista Ultimate :P

RE: Could this hurt future service packs?
By Parhel on 6/27/2008 6:10:42 PM , Rating: 1
A retail copy of Windows Vista Ultimate costs $289 at NewEgg:

Don't you think it's a little dishonest to search for the absolute highest price for a product, and then claim that's what it normally costs? You can charge a million dollars if you want to . . . but $289 is the normal price.

Not to mention that the apples-to-apples comparison would be to the Upgrade edition - which costs $184.99 on NewEgg. It's not like you can install a copy of Mac OS on any system you want to. You have to have already bought a Mac, and thus already own a copy of the Mac OS.

Furthermore, why not use Home Premium, which on NewEgg costs $122.99 for the Upgrade or $222.99 for the Full Install edition? I paid $114.50 for a retail Upgrade version of Home Premium. Or, why not buy OEM for even less money still?

RE: Could this hurt future service packs?
By Pirks on 6/27/2008 9:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
I just did an honest comparison, that's all. I compared full version of one OS with a full version of another OS, in their retail versions. I don't want to compare a crippled OS with a full version of another OS.

$400 was the Microsoft's MSRP, and $129 was Apple's MSRP at the same time when Vista costed $400, so it's reasonable to compare these two price points.

Yes, MS has drastically lowered the price of Vista now because it didn't seem to generate any tangible sales (besides OEM preinstalled version of course, where people are mostly forced to buy Vista without any other choices).

Yes, Apple is also responsible for this lack of choice between consumer OSes, but this adds nothing substantial to the argument about prices.

You don't like the fact that full version of Vista costed $400 when Mac OS X always costed $130? Sorry, can't help ya there! This was Microsoft's decision, so please don't blame me, okay?

Even comparing upgrade version of Vista Ultimate doesn't change a lot. It costed $260 (Microsoft's January 2007 MSRP again) which is at least twice more expensive than OS X.


Vista is killed by OS X family pack, desecrated and spit upon in any shape or form, even if you compare OS X against Vista Home Basic (bleah!)

Microsoft's pricing is a sick joke when you compare it with OS X family pack. Again, this is NOT ME setting these crazy prices for Vista, so please blame MICROSOFT! Thanks for understanding.

RE: Could this hurt future service packs?
By Parhel on 6/27/2008 9:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
You don't like the fact that full version of Vista costed $400 when Mac OS X always costed $130?

Mac OS has never cost $130 for a full version because Apple has never offered a full version of the Mac OS. That's the price for an upgrade because you can't do anything with it unless you've already bought a Mac and thus already bought the OS.

If you could buy Mac OS and install it on a non-Mac, it would fair to compare it to the full version of Vista. As it stands, it's only fair to compare it to the Vista upgrade. You would only buy a non-upgrade version of Vista to install on a PC with no OS, and their isn't a Mac equivalent.

That said, I have no problem with you comparing the $129 price for Mac OS with the $185 price for the Vista Ultimate Upgrade, although I would still tend to recommend Home Premium.


The phrase "you get what you pay for" comes to mind. :) I'm not trying to be rude, but I really just don't see what someone would do with five Macs.

Personally, if the Mac OS was offered as a stand alone, and I could install it on my own system, I would buy a copy today.

Out of curiosity, what kind of Macs do you currently own?

By Pirks on 7/2/2008 1:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
I don't own one, it's my work machine so it belongs to my company. It's a Power Mac Dual G5 2.0 GHz with 10.4.11, no Leopard yet since this thing is not exactly stable yet (no matter what Jobs back spot lickers will tell ya)

There is some exclusively Mac 3D rendering software that does not exist for Windows at all, so... driven by software apps as always ;-)

It was a surprise for me to find out that Windows is not the best OS for 3D work. Interesting, I always thought it was...

By just4U on 6/28/2008 1:49:16 AM , Rating: 2
I just did an honest comparison, that's all.

<chuckle> Yeah ok, whatever.

By BAFrayd on 7/4/2008 4:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
Apple OS is not relevant to this discussion. There is no such word as "costed" Enjoy your MAC.

What do you expect?
By BaronMatrix on 6/26/2008 3:23:17 PM , Rating: 5
Intel will need to use ATi or nVidia graphics to upgrade to Vista. How embarrassing is that?

RE: What do you expect?
By pauldovi on 6/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: What do you expect?
By Screwballl on 6/26/2008 3:36:20 PM , Rating: 3
You try running Vista on a computer with integrated Intel graphics... its not pretty or fast. My mother-in-laws computer is setup with 2GB of memory, 2.5GHz CPU and it is still slower than XP on a 500MHz system due to the onboard graphics. Plus since it is a basic OEM Dell, there is no PCIe or AGP port, only PCI.
I have been looking for a "upgrade-to-XP" license but they want money for it so she will have to suffer another year or two until I build her next one.

RE: What do you expect?
By FITCamaro on 6/26/2008 3:50:46 PM , Rating: 2
I've dealt with Vista on a 3GHz P4 with HT, 2GB RAM, and the 945 integrated graphics. Worked fine. And that was back in Beta 1 when all the debug code was running. Had Aero on too.

My parents system is a X2 4200+ and 2GB RAM on a motherboard with Nvidia integrated graphics running Home Premium with Aero on. Works fine.

RE: What do you expect?
By headbox on 6/26/2008 4:40:49 PM , Rating: 4
I'm sure your definition of "just fine" is very different than mine.

RE: What do you expect?
By SammyJr on 6/26/2008 5:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
I run Vista on a Shuttle barebones with integrated graphics on the G33 chipset and a nonoverclocked E6850. Just fine means that it handles Bluray playback fine.

RE: What do you expect?
By StevoLincolnite on 6/26/2008 9:03:58 PM , Rating: 5
My Next door Neighbor is running it on a Pentium Dual Core 1.8ghz, 2gb of ram and an Intel GMA X3100 and it's perfectly fine.

Heck you don't -have- to have a Direct X 9 Graphics card to run Aero, with a registry tweak you can get even Direct X 7 class GPU's to run Aero, which shows that Aero is not GPU intensive.

Here is the registry entries, the oldest GPU I got it to run on was a Geforce 2 GTS Overclocked.


* `EnableMachineCheck' (Avalon Engine) 0 disable the hardware checking, 1 qualifies it.
* `Glass' 1 qualifies Air Glass, 0 returns to Air
* `Blur' 1 qualifies blur, 0 returns to the transparence
* “UseAlternateButtons” 0 lengthen the push-buttons, 1 render them squared.
* `Animations' 0 disable the animations, 1 qualifies to them.
* “AnimationsShiftKey” 0 disable the slow animations with key shif

RE: What do you expect?
By RamarC on 6/26/2008 3:59:09 PM , Rating: 3
my laptop has intel graphics and runs vista with aero just fine. you can't game on it, but aero isn't that flippin' gpu intensive.

RE: What do you expect?
By pauldovi on 6/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: What do you expect?
By geddarkstorm on 6/26/2008 4:04:04 PM , Rating: 2
They will be though, if Intel has its way.

RE: What do you expect?
By gyranthir on 6/26/2008 6:03:29 PM , Rating: 3
Actually most of Intel's integrated graphics line is pretty stout.

And with Vista Business and Vista Enterprise, you can turn off all of that extra good looking jump, and still have a perfectly fine operating system. That will work on some pretty old machines. It worked ok, on my AMD athlon xp 2600+ with 1gb of ram and a 9600se video card.

The real issue is, that this point. WHY pay for something you already have, a perfectly fine operating system. Because once you turn off all of the pretty features, your only real gains are bitlocker, and ready boost, really....

RE: What do you expect?
By JumpingJack on 6/27/2008 1:06:12 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, there would likely be no embarrassement since Intel (or any other company) would not 'need' ATI or nVidia discrete soltuions to render Aero. In fact, when Vista launched Intel has the more robust IGP solution for Aero.. even the now retired 965G was adequate.,2845,2121212...

AMD likes to talk up its more-robust-compatibility story with its integrated 690G chipset. Any company will want to play up its strengths, but when you get right down to it, no one buys a system with integrated graphics for PC gaming—unless they are very budget constrained.
Most systems that use integrated graphics go into businesses. Intel is a step ahead of the competition here, with more-robust Aero support. Further, Intel's video playback quality has improved substantially, which helps them in the multimedia segment.

The GMA X3000 offers a viable solution for desktop office users, including those who want support for Vista Aero. Game support is still something of a mixed bag, though what we've seen of the early Summer drivers looks encouraging.

No one would argue that Intel's IGP solutions run a distant second (or third) to anything else, the fact remains that the graphical requirements for making translucent borders or a slanted page flip eye candy scene is not so great that IGP cannot handle it.

In fact, Intel pretty much dominates the commercial space, thanks in part to the platform approach that AMD is now copying. AMD's purchase of ATI will help them here, but advertising great gaming is not something an IT manager will consider as a deal make or break when procuring huge orders.

Good try Baron but it is clear you have not changed...


Mountains from molehills
By epobirs on 6/26/2008 3:31:20 PM , Rating: 4
These stories are being blown grossly blown out of proportion. From the perspective of a big corporate IT buyer, Vista at a mere 1.5 years in release is still an infant. I'm currently working on a PC refresh/deployment for a massive U.S. bank. Where we aren't replacing old out of warranty PCs with new ones, we're placing new images. What are those old images? Windows 2000, which gets replaced with Windows XP.

That's right. It's mid- 2008 and Windows 2000 is only now being eliminated from this bank's nearly 6000 branches. This should give you some idea how slow big corporate IT departments are to roll out major OS revisions.

I've worked on a couple of good sized (a few thousand seats) Vista deployments but those are dwarfed by this bank project. So, in all likelihood, most big corporations will skip Vista. Sort of. Microsoft has already made clear that Windows 7 will draw heavily on Vista. By and large, Win 7 sounds more like Vista SE than a major new revision. Those with long memories might recall that the original Windows 98 hadn't seens much corporate uptake when 98 SE came out. The result was that most big corporations skipped the original Win 98.

It appears history will repeat itself with Vista and Windows 7.

RE: Mountains from molehills
By killerroach on 6/26/2008 3:52:04 PM , Rating: 4
And, when you get into smaller corporate IT departments, some of them still have extensive rollouts of NT4, to say nothing of 2000 or XP...

In areas where stability is mission-critical and IT budgets are often leaving no margin for error, sometimes upgrading isn't much of an option.

RE: Mountains from molehills
By Master Kenobi on 6/26/2008 4:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
Still 15% of my infrastructure on Windows 2000. We are looking into Vista but probably won't start an initial deployment until late 2009. I'm busy converting the last of the 2000 machines to XP, last thing I need is an environment with 3 different OS's.

RE: Mountains from molehills
By emboss on 6/26/2008 8:39:26 PM , Rating: 3
To put this completely in context, we had a Vax fail a couple of weeks back, which caused quite a few problems. And the PDP-11 was only retired last year.

RE: Mountains from molehills
By masher2 on 6/26/2008 4:52:24 PM , Rating: 2
That's right. It's mid- 2008 and Windows 2000 is only now being eliminated from this bank's nearly 6000 branches. This should give you some idea how slow big corporate IT departments are to roll out major OS revisions
Absolutely. My own firm -- a company larger than Intel, by the way -- also has vast numbers of servers still running Win2K. We've already made the decision we won't upgrade to Vista until 2009, if then.

RE: Mountains from molehills
By Pottervilla on 6/26/2008 7:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
Don't you work for DailyTECH? Or do you just have a DailyTECH blog?

Who is this company larger than Intel? Is that in computers or in gross?

Forgive my naive curiosity.

Servers aren't even supposed to run vista, are they? Isn't that what Server 2008 is for? I realize, same kernel. :)

I personally haven't had many problems with vista--just a driver or software incompatibility here and there--but I can see how those little glitches multiplied by 88,000 could cause quite a burden on Intel's IT department.

RE: Mountains from molehills
By greylica on 6/26/2008 8:16:51 PM , Rating: 1
Same to me, I still love 2000.
All of the essentials completed with free software. I am a Blender User, OpenGL is flying here.
I am using a video capture card, and tried with Vista, lots of droped frames, the encoder fails every time, Lots of "This program is not responding".
OpenGL is slower in Vista even if I am using a newer Geforce 7300, if compared to a Ge force 2 (V7700), and I have tried to render using Blender, Vista is 30% slower than XP and 35% slower than 2000.
2000 is comparable to Linux in software render if you do not use anything than 2000 and your software.

RE: Mountains from molehills
By Domicinator on 6/26/2008 9:27:23 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, it is definitely blown out of proportion. Know why? Because that's Jason Mick's style of "writing". He takes any little anti-Vista nugget he can and tries to make it look like a big story. His very presence on DailyTech is why I no longer consider it a trustworthy tech site. I swear sometimes he's on the Apple payroll and I'm surprised he didn't mention OSX in this "article".

Every time I see a negative Microsoft link on this site, I just know that if I click on it there will be that same goofy picture of Steve Ballmer and there will be Jason Mick's name right underneath the headline. So I make it a point every time I see that to tell everyone to take his articles with a grain of salt. They don't have much credibility and often cite "insiders" and "former employees" as their sources.

Vista is a perfectly acceptable OS. It didn't revolutionize PC gaming the way I thought it would, but I've been gaming on it since it came out and except for the first couple of months after release it's been absolutely fine. I'm running it on my gaming tower with 2 GB of RAM as well as on my laptop with 1 GB of RAM. No problems at all so far.

RE: Mountains from molehills
By jeromekwok on 6/26/2008 9:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 98/SE is not much more than Windows 95 with IE4. So if one is using 95, he should be happy keep using it. For users using NT4 would not opt for an inferior OS. As of today, in my office of around 1000 users, there are more Windows 2000 than XP. Vista is deployed for a few unmanaged laptop users. XP will be the first choice for new PCs at least until 7.

Business logic
By DXRick on 6/26/2008 3:48:05 PM , Rating: 2
The vast majority of business users have no reason to use Vista, any more than they need the latest version of Office. It just shows that, for them, these products have reached maturity. XP works well with Server 2000/2003 for their networking needs, runs the apps they need, and (with their firewalls and choice of anti-virus software) gives them the security they need.

Businesses don't need DirectX 10 or Aero, and they sure don't want to have to upgrade their hardware to run the latest bloatware from MS.

RE: Business logic
By FITCamaro on 6/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: Business logic
By Spivonious on 6/26/2008 4:10:11 PM , Rating: 1
My company still has machines running Windows 95. Changing out hardware on 800+ computers every two years would be an incredible waste of money.

RE: Business logic
By Master Kenobi on 6/26/2008 5:02:37 PM , Rating: 3
Spiv thats not how it works. You refresh 1/3 or 1/4 of your hardware every 3 or 4 years respectively. So there is always machines being refreshed but they are typically machines 3 or 4 years old and are end of life. You don't refresh the entire corporation in one shot.

RE: Business logic
By Spivonious on 6/26/2008 8:37:41 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I know that Master K, but FITCamaro said his company replaces them all at once every two years. I'd hate to work the helpdesk around the time of a switch.

We replace machines as they're needed, which means there are still some 386 machines out there (granted, those are just running laboratory instruments). We have machines running Win95, NT4, Win2k, and XP, and servers running NT4, Win2k, XP, Server 2003, AIX, and HP Unix. The users have a mix of Office 97+Outlook 2000 and Office 2003.

The IT guys tell me they replace the machines as they break or as they need to be upgraded for a piece of software. I've finally won the battle with my boss and we're starting the move from VB6 to .NET 2.0 (hopefully with 3.5 not far behind). The problem is .NET 2.0 isn't supported on anything older than Win2k. We still have 60+ machines that will need to be replaced before we can roll out our .NET stuff.

Enough off-topic ranting though.

RE: Business logic
By mindless1 on 6/26/2008 8:43:10 PM , Rating: 2
Lots of companies have now moved to a longer than 3-4 year refresh cycle. Seems PCs are being made better than they used to be, and the benefits of the upgrade in hardware or OS are negligible for most users.

RE: Business logic
By epobirs on 6/27/2008 5:24:46 AM , Rating: 3
It depends on the nature of the company. As part of the aforementioned bank deployment/re-image project, security is a HUGE consideration. For instance, we have to verify that retiring systems' drives are fully encrypted, even though nothing sensitive should be permanently stored on the client machines. The drives with all of the really sensitive data go into the vault until their picked up by armored car couriers. Thus, there is no place an old machine running Win9x or even NT4 would be permitted. Their primary criterion for hardware refreshes is warranty support. All of the hardware we're replacing is past or coming up on its third birthday. This also applies to some of the peripherals specific to the banking industry.

The bank really, really like it that the vendor will send someone out within 24 hours to replace or repair on the spot anything that goes bad. So that is the major driver for their refresh schedule. The minimizing of disruptions to business make it worth the cost, even if the retired machines have plenty of good life left in them. They get passed on to some charity AFAIK. The bank gets a tax writeoff and some folks get fairly decent computers who'd otherwise have none.

One of the Vista deployemnts I served in had huge problems. A real train wreck but not so much because of Vista. It was more due to incredibly bad planning and execution. This state government agency had a lot of scietific instrument management systems and failed to thouroughly investigate in advance of their commitment whether these apps were going to work. When it turned out they wouldn't in many cases the proposed solution was to include a XP image to run in a virtual machine. Again, very poor planning failed to reveal that these apps by their nature needed a much deeper amount of hardware access than a virtual environment would allow. At least, not unto they had already committed to the deployment.

The companies making the apps were not unsympathetic and expected to be fully compatible in their next major release but they operate on a three-year cycle for those releases and had no intention of investigating whether the cause of the compatibility issues could be solved in the current version. This meant a compatible version was at least 18 months off. This was discovered AFTER they'd already bought several thousand workstations and laptops on which to deploy Vista. The week I joined the project they had added a staggering 150 apps to the items that needed to be tested. The same week machines were to begin landing on desks.

A bunch of incompetents were in severe need of being fired but this was a heavily unionized government outfit. If you were a direct employee, you pretty much had to murder a co-worker to get canned.

They could have rolled out those machines (really nice machine, they were) with XP to give everyone a big hardware up grade and slowly deployed Vista as a soft refresh as it matured and more users had their entire set of needed apps covered. There was no problem on the license side of things. But no, it was all or nothing because a train wreck is best when going at the top speed possible.

RE: Business logic
By FITCamaro on 6/26/2008 7:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
Not if you don't buy any machines. Our company just leases them so they get replaced when their lease is up.

RE: Business logic
By DXRick on 6/27/2008 3:33:09 AM , Rating: 2
That makes no sense. All of the IT companies I have worked for only change the hardware when there is a need to do so. For example, they upgraded us to Windows 2000 because it was required for the server network. Then they upgraded our notebooks to match the hardware requirements of the latest development suite.

They would set a new standard for the laptops to be distributed to new employees, but they would not upgrade the older models in use unless there was a need to do so.

Nothing to do with hardware !!!!
By kilkennycat on 6/26/2008 5:03:53 PM , Rating: 5
While consumer adoption has languished slightly due to some complaints about compatibility, features, and resource consumption, these problems are exponentially greater in the business world, which operates largely on somewhat antiquated hardware.

The reason why Intel is following the example of many private corporations and public institutions on not adopting Vista is just two words "APPLICATIONS COMPATIBILITY" - any implication of antiquated hardware is merely a Microsoft smoke-screen. How many Intel employees would ever need to use an "Aero" interface on a daily basis anyway....?

Vista is not compatible with many existing commercial or custom applications which run perfectly well in XP. No doubt Intel has many in-house or 3rd-party custom programs specially developed for them under XP. And very likely to have tested a number of the most critical with Vista and found serious incompatibility.

Microsoft's biggest blunder in developing Vista was not embedding a user-selectable 100% XP applications-compatible mode within the OS.

As a minor example from my own personal experience of commercial programs with Vista incompatibility, I run Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5/Encore 1.5/Audition1.5. V1.5 is not compatible with Vista. In order for me to use Vista, I would have to upgrade to the equivalents available with Adobe Creative Suite 3 at a cost for that subset of $799. And the benefits that these upgrades bring to my current usage of these products are near zero. (In fact, I expect to skip to Creative Suite 4, which will incorporate extensive GPU acceleration to all facets of photo and video processing -- which will bring huge tangible time-saving. Compatible with both XP and Vista. ) My simple example is just a microcosm of the potential costs to business organizations of upgrading applications software just to regain functionality with a new Windows OS. And for custom built programs, the potential costs and unpredictable loss of time in upgrading and testing for 100% functionality under a new Windows OS is totally unacceptable, since it gives zero additional benefit at applications level. For Intel, exactly which silicon-simulation software will benefit from an Aero interface or the much-vaunted "extra security" in Vista, considering that such software runs within a protected domain anyway ???

It will be very interesting indeed to see how long Microsoft can hold out before caving in and re-starting retail sales of XP. They will certainly have to continue to supply business customers with as many copies of XP as they need until at least a year after Windows 7 comes out. Once bitten (with Vista) twice shy. For those who just want to run games and standard high-volume mainstream office applications, Vista is fine. For most other serious users of a Windows OS, Vista is a bust.

RE: Nothing to do with hardware !!!!
By tjr508 on 6/26/2008 9:18:53 PM , Rating: 3
Thank you!
Someone had to say it.
It seems the DT that was filled with technology professionals is long gone and replaced by a bunch of 15 year old gamers.
I have worked as an engineer for a number of technology companies using scientific instruments controlled by or interfaced to PCs. None of these companies would even think about switching an OS until there is an absolute need to. It would be quite silly to spend millions rewriting software and risking millions more in mistakes just because Microsoft says their new os works better.

RE: Nothing to do with hardware !!!!
By rgsaunders on 6/27/2008 10:07:28 AM , Rating: 3
Somebody finally said it, but more politely than I would have. Another thing that these instant experts don't realize is that there are instances of hardware that will not work with Vista because of no OS support at the hardware level. There are specialized ISA controller cards running in DOS boxes in 10s of thousands of locations, many companies have backup hardware warehoused in case of failure. When I retired, we were running in excess of 65K seats, not counting various mainframes, minis, etc. In specialized environments, there are still many PDP machines hanging in.
Seems that people here seem to think you just install and go, overlooking the fact that the largest cost of upgrading is frequently training, lost productivity, etc. Hardware is usually 40% or less of the cost of an upgrade. Specialized software replacement can take years and many millions of dollars of development funding, not to mention running the old and new systems in parallel until validation is completed.
The cost benefit equation of upgrading in an environment where computers are tools and not toys does not support upgrading to Vista, or in many cases, even XP.

By jabber on 7/3/2008 9:19:33 AM , Rating: 2
Too right. My firm employs over 60000 staff and has thousands and thousands of applications and applications that work within applications (Lotus Notes databases anyone?).

It takes practically years and costs millions to go through and check, patch, update, redevelop stuff to move to a new OS platform. We just could not and will not slap on every new MS OS that comes along every few years. it would be total chaos. Kids dont realise this

Enterprises are limited in future to whatever OS choice they made many years ago.

My firm went standard on NT4 so we skipped 2000 and then deployed XP (took nearly 3 years). Chances are we will skip Vista and look at the next version.

Another firm may have gone with Win95, then moved to 2000 and now are going with Vista.

For Office we standardised on Office97 then went to OfficeXP. Any other version is a long way off.

Essentially we seem to work on a 6 year cycle.

As a footnote, most of our staff (except laptop users) would still be fine using a fully patched NT4 build. It would be preferable to a degree due to its lack of native USB support but thats another story.

When did Intel change over to XP?
By Denigrate on 6/26/2008 4:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
So anyone have the change over date for Intel from Win2K to WinXP? Don't think I saw that above.

Also, given how cheap RAM is these days, I'm really at a loss as to why people list that as a reason to avoid Vista. Considering I can get 4GB of RAM for the price of a single 128mb stick of RAM when XP came out, it just does not add up.

RE: When did Intel change over to XP?
By mindless1 on 6/26/2008 8:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
First, suppose you have 32bit apps. Suppose you want to have as much memory available to them as possible, then the idea is NOT to try and only have enough to make the OS run because the OS is only the means to the end of running the apps.

Plus, if your OS takes double the memory, it needs double the memory bandwidth if all else were equal, it's not just about having the memory but that it's not a free resource even if the memory costs nothing.

Memory is a reason even if it's now cheaper than ever. For every $20, $40, $80 etc, what /can't/ you upgrade on a pc? Most things, but the public's perception of what a PC should cost has meant prices have gone way down over time. 12 years ago a $2200 PC was common. Today a $1000 PC costs more than most end up spending.

RE: When did Intel change over to XP?
By epobirs on 6/27/2008 4:51:49 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, if you want to give your 32-bit apps the maximum amount of memory, what you want is Vista 64. I wouldn't recommend XP 64 to anyone not having a very specific need for it but Vista 64 works great. Building an 8 GB quad-core system is very affordable and several 32-bit apps can run as if they had an entire system to themselves.

Fast RAM is far too cheap to quibble over the difference between memory usage in XP vs. Vista. Go 64-bit. It isn't a matter of if but when. If Windows 7 were 64-bit only (Microsoft considered but later said it would have a 32-bit version. This ins't so much to support by then ancient hardware but specialized markets, especially embedded.) most consumers wouldn't notice the difference. That machines offered at places like Best Buy had greater than 4 GB RAM would just seem like a natural progression. And it is, really. It just requires some under the hood transitions the typical wouldn't care to understand.

RE: When did Intel change over to XP?
By mindless1 on 6/28/2008 1:58:22 AM , Rating: 2
Actually no, there's nothing "affordable" in the context of spending more than twice what a typical office machine costs. 8GB quad-core Vista is the very last thing a business wants. The majority of businesses today already feel they have overspent on hardware spec., would rather have money back that they wasted, not spend a bit more and more again.

By The0ne on 7/1/2008 10:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
Quad core for office use. That's funny. I'm talking to a few of my co-workers who happens to be design engineers and we're laughing. They don't even think they need a quad core. Unless you're desperate to count every minute and just want a new toy. I had a quad at home simply because I like building and customizing PCs. What do I use it for? A few games here and there and sometimes to work with videos.

Mindless is right, "affordable" is subjective.

XP users feel the same way
By Reclaimer77 on 6/26/2008 6:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
Said the insider, "This isn’t a matter of dissing Microsoft, but Intel information technology staff just found no compelling case for adopting Vista."

Thank you. Its not that my PC is slow. Its not that I can't afford Vista. Its just that there is nothing compelling enough in Vista for me to switch.

Me and other XP users are being painted on DT as fanatics bunkered down in our forts waving anti Vista flags. Nothing is further from the truth. We just have great running PC's using a mature and polished OS and we see no reason to upgrade. Vista isn't compelling enough !

RE: XP users feel the same way
By just4U on 6/27/2008 11:52:29 AM , Rating: 2
Uh ...

I've seen some of the posts you speak of... You do realize these people paint themselves into that corner right?

It's one thing for someone to say we have no compelling reason to upgrade (which doesn't need to be challenged) Totally another when their posts can mislead others into thinking that Vista Sucks and should be avoided like the plague..

RE: XP users feel the same way
By mindless1 on 6/28/2008 2:02:16 AM , Rating: 2
Well if Vista is only more bloat, more cost, with nothing compelling to make someone upgrade, wouldn't that be suckage that should be avoided? If it's the word plague that gets you, don't write plague anymore since you seem to be the only one doing it.

RE: XP users feel the same way
By just4U on 6/28/2008 5:13:18 AM , Rating: 2
When I build a new computer for someone and they are hesitant about putting Vista on it because a friend of a friend of a friend who doesn't even use it said it sucks, I kinda have a problem with that.

Especially since it is better then XP.

Finally running at a decent speed
By DrApop on 6/26/2008 4:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
When did XP come out....2002? Late last year, 2007, I built a new computer with AMD X2 5000, 2 gig ram, SATA 250 gig my XP finally loads and runs at a speed that I am happy with. It only took 5 years! Why would I want to upgrade to something that is going to actually end up slowing me down.

Perhaps Microsoft built XP too good. But then again they needed to do something after Windows Millenium or whatever it was.

Actually I think one of the main reasons for not upgrading by the average home user is all the confusing versions of Vista that are available. I run XP pro at home and I have no idea what would be the complementary Visa version...I don't want to buy something less than what I already have....and their top product is just too expensive for home use.....IMO.

RE: Finally running at a decent speed
By masher2 on 6/26/2008 5:16:01 PM , Rating: 2
> "But then again they needed to do something after Windows Millenium ..."


By Icelight on 6/27/2008 9:29:11 AM , Rating: 2
I'll do it for you.


When innovation doesn't go so well
By livelouddiefast on 6/26/2008 4:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
The way i see it, Vista is just another step. It has a lot of groundbreaking features (for MS) that will certainly be kept in win7, and the failures can be used as a reference point. Vista is certainly a highly functional and beautiful os, with the right set up. Hopefully by the time win7 rolls around hardware will have played some catch up (SSDs for speedy loads and improved igp's to name a couple) and it'll have more innovation in the right places.

That being said, this seems like the prime time for apple to start manufacturing some very basic computers at a consumer-friendly price point (let's say 600 for a laptop, 400 for a desktop) to build up osx adoption, or for linux or some other competitor to try and get a larger market share.

By tjr508 on 6/26/2008 11:48:51 PM , Rating: 3
This thread relates to business use. Nobody is complaining that Vista failed to deliver a step forward. The business complaint is that MS failed to look backward as well.
The engineering/scientific field is probably the most demanding as most scientific equipment in use today was devoloped on 16bit code and older interfaces. In order to achieve vista compatability, revenue generating equipment must be taken down for weeks or even months of testing; resulting in very high costs. It's not like most companies have surpluss IT and programming staff to just halt their daily activities to go work on some vista update project either.
The hesitation to use vista in the technology sector has nothing to do with sticker price or hardware demands and everything to do with compatability.

Freeze like a bunny, die like a bunny
By eegake on 6/26/2008 10:04:25 PM , Rating: 2
Our small operation ( less than 200 workstations and half a dozen Windows servers ) made the decision to start moving away from Windows 2 years ago. We kept our Macs and moved Windows desktops and servers to Linux. It took a while to pick off the loose ends, and we do keep a couple of Windows boxes for testing purposes only. Other than that we were pretty much done with Windows by the end of last year.

We are very happy with the result, and given the way things are working out, feel very smug about our decision of two summers ago.

By BAFrayd on 7/4/2008 5:03:19 PM , Rating: 2
What business are you in, I wonder?

By johndiii on 7/1/2008 8:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
I have posted on Daily Tech occasionally about this but I want to point this out here again. To get along in the business world, your OS must be manageable by the corporate environments chosen set of management tools. I personally deal in the world of Altiris which is now Symantec. However, there are many tools out there in the market, including Microsofts System Center (formerly SMS). The problem with Vista is that it is not easily managed with 3rd party tools that people like such as Altiris, Landesk, and Novell.
The other problem that I've been running into is deployability. Corporations do not buy a computer and leave the OEM OS on it. They generally buy the hardware and push out their own corporate image. There have been a lot of problems getting Vista to image correctly in large scale. It does work, but XP is orders of magnitude easier to deploy in this manner. Just wanted to point out this out once again.

RE: Deployabilty
By jabber on 7/3/2008 9:31:30 AM , Rating: 2
Yes its quite apparent how few of DT's readers have actually worked in a large corporate IT environment.

If you work in a multi-national IT area you may as well have your IT magazines/news routed via Mars as that latest tech will take you a couple of years to reach the desktop/users in most cases.

Dual core tech should now be peaking your interest. What will those crazy guys think of next???

Meh...the overhead isn't THAT bad.
By SiliconAddict on 6/26/2008 8:43:28 PM , Rating: 1
Yes a vanilla install of vista does have a fair amount of overhead. But assuming your company has an IT dept who builds a configed and tweaked image you can decrease the overhead. Hell kill the Windows Search service and disk activity drops substantially while still allowing you to search your system, albeit slower.
I think there is a preconception in the industry that Vista sucks...that, prior to SP1, IS true. It sucked with the intensity of a black hole. However any IT pro worth their salt would be willing to take a look at Vista with SP1.
I personally am running Vista Business on a Gateway tablet with a 1.2Ghz ULV C2D, 100GB 5400RPM SATA drive, 3GB RAM, 128MB Intel integrated graphics and performance is fine if not snappy. the only thing in the above that is out of the ordinary is the 3GB of RAM and THAT may be Intel's main sticking point. Many companies are running in the 1GB of RAM area. Contrary to what MS say this is not enough. *shrugs*
As for benefits. this IS a problem with Vista. Many of the security benefits are taken care of via already purchased 3rd party solutions for XP. (i.e Black Ice and Norton Corp.) With a locked down desktop in XP the reasons to update are negligible for a business. For a home user its much more obvious. Esp for those who aren't computer savvy. Vista's out of the box security does a better job of idiot proofing the system for your click-anything-that-pops-up user. And while there isn't any build in AV software the Firewall is a solid app.

No I understand where Intel is coming from but I think this report is giving the generic facts focusing on the cons of Vista. No doubt they looked at the pros and there are many, assuming you aren't a zealot Apple fanboi. But at the end of the day its less appealing to an enterprise that has its shit together already. More so to smaller shops and very appealing to home users....with SP1 of course.

By tmouse on 6/27/2008 7:58:12 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with your points, people have to also keep in mind the majority of Intel’s computers are probably also not the latest designs, especially in the routine administrative spaces. Microsoft panicked and their announcement of a new release so soon after the Vista release just hurt things. I think most companies are just waiting for attrition of their old systems for the migration to Vista, and this is probably more driven by the uncertain economic circumstances than any real IT issue. Sooner or later companies will migrate. Newer machines with new chipsets and graphics cards simply will not be XP compatible (I’m not saying tomorrow but not all that far away either),OEMs will drive it; just look at Sata vs. Pata most Dells simply do not support Pata anymore. The toughest part will be when the masses migrate from 32 to 64, having done several of these migrations I can testify what a pain that is.

By pauldovi on 6/26/2008 3:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
3DS still doesn't support Vista. Perhaps this is why Intel is not moving over. (Not sure if they use Dassault Systems or not).

Any ways, I don't think it is that Vista is bad. It is that XP is still quite useful, especially with SP3.

No compelling reason
By DrApop on 6/26/2008 4:31:05 PM , Rating: 2
It said it in the article and I personally think it is correct. There basically is no compelling reason to least for the average home owner....and probably the vast majority of businesses. What does Vista really have to offer??? Better security? Get a good virus program and firewall and be done with it....and you can get good one for free to boot!

Yeah, I'm sure there are other security issues that don't face the normal home owner or the regular business user...but they make up 90+ percent of the market. No real or compelling reason to upgrade. This is especially true considering that most would need to purchase a whole new computer.

It is not like in the good ole days when you jumped to XP to get away from the blue screen of death. I mean, what can I do on Vista that I can't do on XP? Heck I still use the classic 95' interface!

No compelling reason.

Sensationalist journalism
By lemonadesoda on 6/26/2008 5:51:21 PM , Rating: 2
1./ "According to the insider, who request anonymity due to possible damage to Microsoft and Intel's relationship", LOL. Anonymous or not, damage done by going public in this way.

2./ While I do see merits of Vista in the home user space, TBH, I really cannot find one compelling reason to upgrade from XP to Vista in the office. Not one business workflow that I know of would be more efficient under Vista. But upgrading, installing and providing training and a helpdesk would incur downtime and costs.

3./ I dont see any back turning or snubs from trusted friends. You bet Intel is paying MS the same big annual license fees to MS as every year. If Intel was going Linux or MacOS that would be a different story!

Window 7
By blue7053 on 6/26/2008 6:30:37 PM , Rating: 2
Leave it to MS to get it wrong. The single thing restricting the advance of the Starship computer is the tactile interface. We can put the monitor in your eye, the memory in a button, the CPU in a belt buckle, but the keyboard must be the size of our hands.

Apparently they couldn't solve the vocal interface, soooo back to the gimmicks. Fingerpainting anyone?

By jonmcc33 on 6/26/2008 7:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
Really, stop acting like a child already. More Windows Vista systems exist on corporate domains than all Apple Macs combined so maybe you should shut up already.

By gochichi on 6/27/2008 12:07:10 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see what the big deal is. I am somewhat OK with Vista bashing, what really baffles me is the idolatry of Windows XP as some sort of ideal OS.

Vista is hands down better than Windows XP, hands down. Microsoft is moving right along to the next thing, and I believe that their announcing the next generation of Windows for 2009 would lead companies to stay away from a major change when yet another change is coming.

I know people that are all "proud" of geneting brand new computers with Windows XP... and it baffles me. It's like really? You got an outdated system for your new hardware... that's great.

OSs wise, the only really interesting that could happen is for Apple to open Mac OS X to all PCs (or at least some other brands). Selecting from different Microsoft products is a weird way to "show Microsoft".

I don't hate Vista... I kinda like it. Mac OS X for all their talk is completely and inherently incompatible with OS 9... so I think the Vista transition is quite a bit smoother than THAT.

I like Vista, I like you can actually SEARCH worth a hoot, which is invaluable. I could care less about performance if I can't find my file, you dig?

About "gamers" not taking the DX 10 "bait"... WOW.
Ok, so HANDS DOWN, games look better on DX10. Now, if you have an old video card, more power to you. But it truly baffles me to see people with GeForce 8800GT or Radeon 3870 or better video cards with WinXP. What a waste, it's that simple. I like Microsoft in a lot of ways, I think Microsoft would be more in their game if they had some competition though.

Totally misleading title
By tmouse on 6/27/2008 8:09:20 AM , Rating: 2
Way to go Mick, another weak sensational title. How exactly is not doing a corporate wide Vista upgrade "turning their back"? Are they changing to Apple or Unix?


What was their adaption rate for XP? Do you have ANY idea?
I doubt it.

I’m willing to bet many major Apple shops still have a majority of their systems running OS9 and Motorola based systems, is that “turning their back” on Apple?

Point is they will change to Vista since the next few versions will be based on a Vista Kernel, just as some of Vista is XP.

You have a future writing for the enquirer.

The future of OS
By roadrun777 on 6/27/2008 9:49:16 AM , Rating: 2
My biggest complaint with Vista is how slow it runs. It really is sluggish, and that is after I disabled 15 unused services, patch some gaping security back doors, and tweak some system settings. It's slow and it uses 2x the memory that XP did. But! Overall it adds features that I really like. It handles multiple displays better, it also has more features for disabled people that XP didn't. In the audio department, it completely failed. The latency is horrible, and MS shot themselves in the foot there. It has improvement with the programming API in the background, unfortunately the "layer" approach to building backward compatibility has taken its toll. Its time for MS to open up its kernel and allow more tweaking and customization. They really need to virtualize the legacy system and completely separate it from a new kernel. Its time to dump all that legacy bloat. 80% of what is loaded in memory from my Vista OS is completely unused by me, and there is no way for me to disable these subsystems, since each "layer" borrowed a feature from a previous layer. It all needs to be scrapped. The windows kernel is like my grandparents garage now, it has so much sh*t in it from so many years, no one can get into the garage to find out whats useful anymore. We want speed speed speed, the fastest leanest, most customizable kernel possible, not an OS bloated with 40 years of API's for backwards compatibility.

Vista adoption
By Rebargod on 6/27/2008 10:29:08 AM , Rating: 2
Vista bashing:
1.I like Vista. It has some new features that makes me faster working on my pc. It is faster then XP when running current hardware

2. I would expect that large corporations may skip Vista, not because its crap, but thats the cycle of software hardware adopttion

3. OMG, I wont get Vista because I might have to upgrade to newer, better software / hardware..worst reason I have ever heard for bashing vista.

1st post on DT, and had to vent.

Noqw if only DX10
By Regs on 6/27/2008 11:21:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I had to say it. Now if only DX10 could be on XP!

Intel's computers
By Boomerz on 6/27/2008 7:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
Are not Vista Capable!!! I bet they are using the 915 chipsets.

By wordsworm on 6/29/2008 7:09:45 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft should then get its revenge against Intel by making the next generation of OS capable of running on an old machine.

Ballmer ... alleged junkie?
By HVAC on 7/2/2008 12:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
So, what drugs is Steve-a-rino doing, anyway? Is he just naturally a tongue exposing ball of joyful fun?

By Misty Dingos on 6/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: Retirement
By abraxas1 on 6/26/2008 2:47:52 PM , Rating: 5
Probably a whole lot better then your "non-profit, save the world, feed all the kids, keep busy retirement, still be richer than god and then still get into heaven" plan.

RE: Retirement
By aharris on 6/26/2008 2:54:54 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Retirement
By FITCamaro on 6/26/2008 3:54:43 PM , Rating: 1
Except in his, he doesn't do any of that while Bill Gates does. Don't forget educating the kids either. Or providing numerous college scholarships.

I have to admit to being...
By Motoman on 6/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: I have to admit to being...
By Spivonious on 6/26/2008 3:10:14 PM , Rating: 5
I'm thinking the reason is more like "why waste all this time and money installing Vista when Windows 7 is coming out in less than two years?"

RE: I have to admit to being...
By rtrski on 6/26/2008 3:22:38 PM , Rating: 5
Frankly I see it more as the pace of computer upgrading - at least when compared against the 'need' - has slowed down considerably as compared to between the Win 95/NT and XP days. So IT departments don't want to upgrade if they don't have to...why spend just to spend?

For 90% of business computing needs (accounting and documentation software and the like, basic "Office" fodder), there's no burning need for faster HW or software - the status quo does fine. Ironically for those aspects of business that do benefit from speedups - simulation, layout design, etc - the programs themselves while they will gladly take advantage of faster processors and more memory tend to be themselves slow to officially support newer OS's. So again, no need, even if you do upgrade HW.

And if you do any defense-related design, you've got to worry about getting the new OS security approved. Hell, an employer who shall remain nameless is just now realizing they have to get rid of their old 2k machines as those represent lingering open security holes.

None of this represents "Vista hate" IMO...just lack of need. FWIW I do use Vista at home in my newer builds (x64 even) and have no beef with it at all.

RE: I have to admit to being...
By Hakuryu on 6/26/2008 4:18:18 PM , Rating: 2
I feel the same way about the personal computer side... no need to upgrade.

There are only two things I want from Vista - DX10 and that gaming rig 'test' from the Ultimate version. Is that worth nearly $500 and possible hardware and software problems? No.

You can list any number of reasons to upgrade, like security, but my two year old XP install has never had a virus or trojan or been hacked. After a trojan hit me back in the P2 days, I update and use a good AV and firewall.

You can also list any number of reasons not to upgrade, like the common 'Bloat' gripe. While I don't blindly accept all problems reported as true, why would I even take the chance when what I have now works perfectly?

RE: I have to admit to being...
By rippleyaliens on 6/26/2008 4:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
SAME ole story. Win 2000 came out , first few months of 2000, win xp came out 2 years later.
Wayyyy back in 1995, when win95 was released, the good ole 486 dx2/66 was the main stream processor. 2mb video ROCKED!!!, that big ole 500MB hard drive.. BUT win95 was just slower than dirt compaired to dos 6.x/win 3.11

it sold, very well, but in the corporate world, it didnt really take off as fast. Win98, same thing, But once win98se was released it did better. To me Vista is like windows ME. Solid product, but not too corporate friendly.
We still have 1000's of computers running win2000... Why- easy, in a REAL corporate environment, there is NEVER 100% Microsoft APPS.. PERIOD.. 100% compatibility is paramount.
Win 2k8 server is 4 months old, we are a 100% microsoft Server shop, yet -0- on win2k8.. We still have win2k servers, that we just cannot upgrade due to the application having issues with win2k3/2k8..

Nothing new here. EVEN when windows 7 comes out, there still will be very SLOWWWWWW adoption in the corporate world. BUT by then, desktops will be 6-8 Core on the cheap side.. 512mb 8800GT cards will be $65.. No excuse to not go vista by then..

Also, VISTA ROCKS on the laptop.. MUCH better than XP... needs 2gb of ram, but for $30 per GB, that is chazzeepp.
Corporate desktop, well IT IS HORRIBLE... Just manageing them, is like mission impossible. Anti-Virus Just became reliable only within last few months. (not avg- But a real Managable AV) let alone, other simple apps. We wont even go into the Custom apps,,

I think 1.5 to 2.5 more years, then vista will be a good Corporate machine.. Windows 7, trust me, will not make life easier, Intel wants to make money to.. If windows 7 works on your p4 3ghz , then why would you upgradE????

RE: I have to admit to being...
By Spivonious on 6/26/2008 4:39:09 PM , Rating: 1
Here's how I see it:

95 introduced 32-bit to the home desktop. It also introduced COM and the idea of a central "registry" to store information in a standard way. It also hid DOS from the user and had plug-n-play which freed the user from those nasty IRQ/DMA configs.

98 was way too buggy and crashed pretty much once a day.

98SE fixed the problems and was a very solid OS.

ME really showed the limits of DOS and as a result was not very stable.

2000 was the next logical step from NT4, nothing huge.

XP was the first consumer-oriented NT OS, and successfully combined NT stability with DOS features. A few service packs later and it couldn't get much better.

Vista is XP with added features. I'd compare it to the first edition Win98.

Windows 7 will be just like 98SE was. Fix the problems with Vista, but don't really add much.

Hopefully Microsoft is realizing that the NT kernel is starting to show its age, and that they should be looking for a complete rewrite. Look at Apple - they had OS 9 and it could do a lot but was buggy and limited. So they took the plunge and did a rewrite for OS X and now they're gaining marketshare and have a positive reputation in the consumer world.

RE: I have to admit to being...
By Belard on 6/26/2008 5:51:20 PM , Rating: 2
I think Vista is more like WindowsME.

Me sucked so much, even MS is laughing about it on their own website.

On their "Future of XP' site, they have "10 reasons to move to vista" section, the features are in XP in a different way or $0~20 add-on for XP. Funny, they didn't list DX10.

Me sucked because they did try a lot on a DOS-type core, it was buggy, slow, worked like crap, incompatible. Sound familer? But it had some pretty elements, they were trying to be like Mac's Aqua GUI back then. FAILED.

Vista is the same thing, based off an older OS, dressed up and have a lot of useless crap added to it. DRM, more clicks to get things done. It takes VERY little to make XP look like Vista, you can download these for free - use google. A 500K program makes the XP Start Menu into Vista in looks and function. yeah, type in text and it finds the items too.

A NICE option to put on the Vista-type start menu is that the POWER button takes you to the Shut down/reboot window rathert than just SHUT DOWN! What RETARD puts an OFF button next to other buttons?!

RE: I have to admit to being...
By Spivonious on 6/26/2008 8:44:56 PM , Rating: 1
Oh I like the power button. It puts my computer right to sleep so I can resume it later in a few seconds and be ready to go. Who shuts down or restarts these days unless they're installing new hardware?

RE: I have to admit to being...
By Belard on 7/2/2008 7:32:09 AM , Rating: 2
And when you accidently hit it trying to get to the OTHER menu items.

Vista goes to sleep slower than my XP can shut down and power up.

Why power down? waste of power, enviroment, electrical bills.

RE: I have to admit to being...
By boogle on 6/27/2008 3:59:20 AM , Rating: 2
Look at Apple - they had OS 9 and it could do a lot but was buggy and limited. So they took the plunge and did a rewrite for OS X and now they're gaining marketshare and have a positive reputation in the consumer world.

OSX is actually using the FreeBSD kernel...

But I agree, Windows needs some rewrite of the low-level I/O functionality & performance, its improved in Vista but not great.

A rewrite of the kernel itself would be suicide for MS because it would lose the most critical feature of Windows - backwards compatibility.

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

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