backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 86 comment(s) - last by ggordonliddy.. on Nov 13 at 8:29 PM

Windows 7 beat Windows Vista in early sales, however job cuts at Microsoft continued, with 800 more employees laid off last week. Microsoft is cautiously optimistic, but worries about whether the recession is truly over.  (Source: news.com.au)
Microsoft is predicting slower adoption after the initial buzz, due to the state of the economy

Microsoft seems well positioned for the future.  Its new Windows 7 operating system has been largely well-received by the press and public thanks to an unprecedented public testing program, which saw millions taking Windows 7 for a free spin. 

In its latest quarterly results, when factoring in the $1.47B USD in deferred revenue from the Windows 7 Upgrade Option program and sales of Windows 7 to OEMs and retailers before the October 22 launch date, Microsoft posted an overall revenue of $14.39B USD.  While down 4 percent from a year ago, this number represents a decrease in losses from previous quarters.

Recent information from the NPD Group, a leading market research firm indicates that Microsoft has more to cheer about.  The firms suggests that Windows 7 has surpassed Windows Vista's opening sales in the same time frame by approximately 234 percent -- an impressive and much-needed turn around for Microsoft.  According to the NPD Group, PC sales spiked 95 percent in the week following the launch.

Recent reports from a separate research firm Net Applications indicate Windows 7 to gaining marketshare at a faster pace than Vista.  Microsoft's outspoken CEO, Steve Ballmer celebrated the results, calling them "fantastic".

Despite the good news, Microsoft had some slightly less blithe news to report.  The company announced that it would be laying off 800 more employees, completing a planned layoff cycle of 5,000 employees.  Despite the apparent sales success of Windows 7, Microsoft felt that the cuts needed to proceed, as its wary of reduced sales after an initial boost, as the economy is still struggling to recover.

In order to deal with a slower pace of tech adoption, Microsoft is now operating with a leaner workforce of approximately 91,005 employees worldwide, with an estimated 54,923 of them in the United States.  Microsoft actually cut slightly over 5,000 jobs, with the latest 800 cuts.  A company spokesperson commented, "Continuing to manage our business closely, as we always do, can mean additional headcount adjustments."

Much of Microsoft's fate rests on whether the economic recovery can continue in 2010.  While some, including U.S. President Barack Obama, say the recession is over, others in the business community warn that we aren't out of the woods yet.

Another key question for Microsoft is whether the warmer reception of Windows 7 will help sway businesses that were on the fence to move up their upgrade plans.  A Deutsche Bank survey of 120 IT buyers suggests that Windows 7 upgrades will begin "within 12 to 18 months".  Likewise, a survey from ScriptLogic suggested that most companies will wait till the end of 2010 to upgrade to Windows 7 (approximately 14 months).

Comments     Threshold


.
By StevoLincolnite on 11/10/2009 8:11:32 AM , Rating: 4
Good job Microsoft!

The sales volume is great to see, especially with a solid product like Windows 7. - Which in my opinion is the best thing to come out of Microsoft's Windows factory since Windows XP Service pack 2. (The original XP was slow and buggy during it's early years).

It's just a shame that it took Microsoft to bring out a refined version of Vista (Aka - Windows 7) that was lighter and more efficient and packs more features because of Vista's slow adoption, and thus slower sales.

Will be interesting to see what future iterations of Windows will bring, I'm all for a fully 3D interface instead of "2D plane rendered in 3D" - Also known as Aero.




RE: .
By reader1 on 11/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: .
By noirsoft on 11/10/2009 9:36:18 AM , Rating: 5
I know you're just trolling as usual... But your list needs to include:
Vista brought:
* 64-bit support in a mainstream OS
* re-done and improved driver model (source of many headaches due to lazy driver developers)
* enforcement of user account rules even in administrator accounts (which developers were warned about since before XP came out)
* Virtualized video hardware so that multiple programs can efficiently share GPU resources.
* much-improved start menu including the search box and the scrolling list instead of the endless cascading menus.

And that's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head. Doesn't even go into the under the hood improvments that you don't use every day.

Vista was a much larger change over XP than XP was over 2000 (hence the big version number change from 5.1 to 6.0) -- Windows 7 is more like the 2000 -> XP upgrade, which is more about refining the kernel and bringing it into wider use, as well as hopefully killing all the stupid lies spread by people like Apple marketing and you.


RE: .
By cabjf on 11/10/09, Rating: 0
RE: .
By noirsoft on 11/10/2009 12:05:37 PM , Rating: 3
XP-64 was not mainstream, hence my specific wording. It was (AFAIK) only avaialble on the Professional version, and not Home. it also had a much higher level of application incompatibility than Vista 64, making it more or less useful only for testing or some very specific applications. Towards the end of Vista's time, it looked like more than 1/3 of new PCs in stores had 64 bit installed. Certainly anythiing with >= 4 gigs of ram had it.

MS told people before XP came out that they would enforce limited user priviledges and such in the next version of Windows. Anyone who failed to have their software ready on day 0 of Vista is a bad developer. They had 6 years warning.

They charged roughly the same amount going from 2000 to XP as from Vista to 7. I don't see the problem. Show Leopard was a much smaller step over Leopard than Vista to 7, and should have been free.


RE: .
By Sulphademus on 11/10/2009 1:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
I had XP-x64 and yes it was only Professional and yes it had more issues than Vista x64 and pretty much it was Microsofts public beta of what their future x64 OSs would look like (behind the scenes anyways).

Im also surprised at how many video driver problems there were with Vista initially. I know this is what soured some people I know on Vista (theyre still sour!). Vista had at least a 6 month beta. Am I to understand that NVidia couldnt get a stable driver going for WDDM in 6 months?

Yeah, alot of other drivers broke with Vista but thats what happens when you change architectures. Windows 7 doesnt have Vista's problems because of Vista's existence.

Win7 is built on Vista (NT6) as XP was built on 2000 (NT5) as Win98 was built on Win95 (9x). And in every case the latter is the far more successful one (though maybe you could argue the Win95 one).


RE: .
By Taft12 on 11/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: .
By Alexstarfire on 11/10/2009 7:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yea, his wording might not have been the best, but I understood what he was saying. XP 64-bit wasn't wide spread, wasn't advertised, and came out way after XP 32-bit. Vista has both flavors available on launch day and was designed with 64-bit computing in mind, XP wasn't.


RE: .
By HotFoot on 11/10/2009 1:13:17 PM , Rating: 3
Regarding the 64-bit question, I think more and more PC sales will have 64-bit operating systems. This has nothing to do with whether people are buying a Vista machine or a Win 7 machine - it's just about the RAM. 4 GB of memory costs so little these days. One of the most recent machines I bought was from Sager. If you got a laptop with 2 GB memory, they might have put a 32-bit OS on it, but if you select 4 GB or more they automatically put 64-bit on it.

Otherwise, who really cares? For home use, the advantage of 64-bit outside of accessing 4 GB+ memory is pretty much nil. As far as I know applications actually getting a performance benefit from 64-bit are mostly engineering/science.


RE: .
By StevoLincolnite on 11/10/2009 10:39:39 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Vista only brought new gimmicks like Aero, Flip 3D, and Gadgets. Windows 7 only brought new gimmicks like Aero Snap, Aero Shake, Aero Peek, and the new taskbar. Microsoft's future operating systems will only bring new gimmicks because monopolies are lazy.


The "Gadgets" System in Vista/Windows 7 is far from a "Gimmick" it's actually incredibly useful, you can view weather quickly and easily, check internet usage on internet plans with a download limit, set up RSS feeds etc, and see them in real time just by looking at the desktop.

Aero is a step in the right direction towards the future, where the Desktop's Graphical User Interface (GUI) will be completely 3D some day, it brings with it a few useful things that make things easier, like Aero Peek and Shake for example.

Other improvements were major re-writes of allot of the under-lying technology's utilized in Windows, like the Kernel, driver model, Direct X, Networking stack etc'.

Windows 7 brought with it, Touch screen functionality, improved performance, refined GUI where things are easier to navigate, for instance I no longer have to dig around in a heap of menu's to adjust my computers resolution in Windows 7, it's just a simple right-click on the desktop. (The way it should have been to begin with), plus finding Wireless access points is easier to boot, those however are the subtle GUI changes made.

Then you also have in Windows 7, Windows docking, Refined UAC, Super-fetch is less aggressive and doesn't start as soon as your computer is turned on improving responsiveness, Gadgets can be located anywhere on the desktop (YAY!), Windows Backup got revamped, much improved backwards compatibility and the return of 2D acceleration support, as well as better Ready Boost support, with larger and more volumes supported, improved Multi-core support... Need I go on?

Call them Gimmicks if you will, but those "Gimmicks" I use on a regular basis and help considerably, and you couldn't pay me to use anything else!

Now, Mr' Troll, bashing Windows Vista was fun, but Windows 7... Don't even bother going there! :)


RE: .
By reader1 on 11/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: .
By Sazar on 11/10/2009 12:13:21 PM , Rating: 2
If I am in a work environment and I am using a product which aids in multi-tasking, I am a more efficient individual.

An OS which, in real-world testing and usage, is far superior to XP, improves your productivity and worth and therefore can be considered to be a monetized improvement.

And the vast majority of business owners and home users would be just as comfortable using a calculator or an abacus. The lowest common denominator should not be the primary deciding factor when pushing the envelope, only for establishing a baseline.

The baseline itself will move upwards and adopt the changes as the relative inertia towards change is overcome.

Vista itself was a solid operating system in it's own right, something borne out by the usage of the core and refinement of the UI.

I know you are just a troll, but I figured I'd humor you :)


RE: .
By Spuke on 11/10/2009 4:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A company is not going to suddenly start raking in more money because they upgraded from XP to Windows 7. No significant advantages means no significant changes.
More stability and security. That's what businesses look at first with features second. If what you said was the case then businesses would still be working with Windows 1.0. Since that's NOT the case, businesses do see value in OS upgrades otherwise they wouldn't spend the money on them.

Quite frankly, why even upgrade your apps if they work well? It's the same thing. You get more stability and security plus added features with the newer apps. Technology doesn't remain stagnant, it moves forward. A new OS is technology moving forward.


RE: .
By reader1 on 11/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: .
By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 4:58:39 PM , Rating: 2
Explain in detail how the design is unstable and vulnerable and why Apple's isn't. Exactly what aspects, IN DETAIL, make it this way?

Also, tell me, how is Microsoft a monopoly? Or, do you REALLY not understand what one is?


RE: .
By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 4:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
The stuff you say isn't going to be any less true just because you say it over and over again..... No significant changes means it's just as false.


RE: .
By ggordonliddy on 11/11/2009 1:45:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
refined GUI where things are easier to navigate, for instance I no longer have to dig around in a heap of menu's to adjust my computers resolution in Windows 7, it's just a simple right-click on the desktop. (The way it should have been to begin with),

What the F are you talking about, you complete dumb@ss? In XP you just right-click the desktop, choose Properties and then Settings. The fact that you consider that to be "digging around in a heap of menu's" is proof that you are a moron (and one who can't spell "menus").


RE: .
By weskurtz0081 on 11/11/2009 9:52:40 AM , Rating: 2
You might want to look into taking some anger management classes.


RE: .
By ggordonliddy on 11/13/2009 8:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
Sir, fare thee well and such. Toodaloo, as you and I both proclaimed at our last heroin anonymous class (oops, not so anonymous now, are we?!) This is the winter of our discontent. Now, where did that dirty syringe go...


RE: .
By Gholam on 11/10/2009 9:19:15 AM , Rating: 2
It's amazing how quickly people forgot the storm of bitching that swept the intarwebs when XP SP2 came out.


RE: .
By Aloonatic on 11/10/2009 9:39:38 AM , Rating: 2
Was that mostly because it was the start of the end of the VLK pirated copies of XP, and was soon followed by the genuine validation "update", which caused a lot of people a lot of problems? So I'm told, probably...


RE: .
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/10/2009 9:55:02 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, you are probably correct. Both SP1 and SP2 included blacklisted keys and would not patch on systems that had them.


RE: .
By Gholam on 11/10/2009 10:03:50 AM , Rating: 2
No, that was because they tightened up security and broke a lot of improperly coded software in the process.

http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/ibm-tells-emp...


RE: .
By Aloonatic on 11/10/2009 10:42:09 AM , Rating: 2
I had a similar problem with a Twain driver not so long ago on an XP machine, post SP3. I guess there's always going to be something that is overlooked. It was an old microfilm scanner to be fair to MS :o)


RE: .
By corduroygt on 11/10/2009 11:43:11 AM , Rating: 2
Because they weren't old enough to get on the internet back then...


RE: .
By Akrovah on 11/10/2009 12:45:38 PM , Rating: 2
Oh I remember the storm, I just never experienced any of the issues myself. In my experience XP SP2 didn't cause any issues, and advanced the Widnows wireless networking manager to a state that was actually useable.


RE: .
By ggordonliddy on 11/11/2009 1:24:12 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, because a 3D interface would so efficient. What are you, 10?

Pathetic MS shill. If you like Vista or Windows 7, you might as well get a sh!tty Mac and cum all over its flashy case as you daydream about Steve Jobs.

It is sad how people jump on the "Windows 7 is great" bandwagon. How can you not be aware of the vast number of bugs that make it a pain in the ass to use.


Lots of stuff coming from Redmond
By Mitch101 on 11/10/2009 8:35:13 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft has a lot of items coming in the next couple months.

Exchange 2010
Windows Mobile 7.0 (Forget 6.5)- Watch some of the stuff on Windows Mobile and its integration with Exchange 2010 and Sharepoint.
Sharepoint 2010
Office 2010
Visual Studio 2010




RE: Lots of stuff coming from Redmond
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/10/2009 9:57:02 AM , Rating: 2
I was extremely impressed by Exchange 2010's JBOD architecture. Goodbye SANS and NAS, hello JBOD.


By Mitch101 on 11/11/2009 12:08:56 PM , Rating: 2
Yes Love the concept just need to build trust with it.


Wrong Words Police...
By XZerg on 11/10/2009 9:12:17 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft is predicting slower adoption after the initial buzz, do to the state of the economy

That should be DUE to, not DO to.




RE: Wrong Words Police...
By R6Raven on 11/10/2009 9:29:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That should be DUE to, not DO to.

Redundancy Police-

This has already been posted.


RE: Wrong Words Police...
By Taft12 on 11/10/2009 2:12:35 PM , Rating: 2
The spelling police and redundancy police are having all sorts of jurisdiction issues!


Due to
By fezzik1620 on 11/10/2009 8:12:39 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Microsoft is predicting slower adoption after the initial buzz, do to the state of the economy


..., due to the state of the economy

c'mon, Mick




RE: Due to
By Sazar on 11/10/2009 12:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
Due the do.


Think global
By crystal clear on 11/10/2009 10:56:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Much of Microsoft's fate rests on whether the economic recovery can continue in 2010. While some, including U.S. President Barack Obama, say the recession is over, others in the business community warn that we aren't out of the woods yet.


Totally wrong conclusions & analysis !

Microsoft's fate is NOT solely dependent on the U.S. economy or its recovery.

The BRIC nations are experience excellent growth for 2009 & 2010,these are huge markets & revenue generators.

Microsoft should be focusing on these countries for its revenues & growth.

Even economies in S.E. Asia are expected to grow faster in 2010,another growth potential for Microsoft.

Microsoft should take advantage of on the weak US dollar & zero interest rates on dollar borrowings to maximize its sales & also launch a massive share buyback program.

As for the USA its a long bumpy road ahead before it sees some serious econmic recovery .

Unemployment has crossed the 10% mark & consumer confidence is very low.

Consumer confidence(USA) will take another 2 years to recover,so 2012 - 2013 is the time range Microsoft can see the U.S. market bounce back.

Another 6+ months will bring about the asset bubble go bust,creating severe instablity in all major economies.

Obama claims that the recession is over is plain over confidence with nothing to back it up.

He has another economic crisis in the waiting in about 6 to 8 months & may have to bring in the another stimulus package.

So microsoft should focus its market stratergy in other areas of the world to achieve its targets.




RE: Think global
By Taft12 on 11/10/2009 2:19:14 PM , Rating: 2
You're right about the BRIC nations being important markets. Unfortunately for Microsoft, all are heavy users of Linux and/or illegal copies of Microsoft software. As MS shareholders will tell you, the past decade wasn't a good one and the next decade could be even worse.


dont forget about beta licences
By invidious on 11/10/2009 8:32:33 AM , Rating: 2
They should see a nice boost once all of the win7 beta keys expire at the end of the year. I have been enjoying that for many months now and have been holding off until the holidays to get a retail copy. I image many others are doing the same.




What the heck, Jason?
By jonmcc33 on 11/10/2009 9:19:13 AM , Rating: 2
There isn't anything new in your post here, Jason. These are all regurgitated events that were already posted here at DailyTech and you merely summarized in a new post.

This is garbage and I have grown to expect better out of you lately.




Nice
By damianrobertjones on 11/10/2009 10:39:30 AM , Rating: 2
I prefer the the thought of clean upgrades as I'm sure it'll mean less infected crappy pcs all over the place.

plus, every company has slackers and although it's never a good thing for people to be out of work, it's a reminder to work damn hard. At least if it 'does' happen to you after working hard, then you've got nothing to feel ashamed about.

P.s. We've had six sets of redundancies where I work in the last five years. Terrible times BUT we've let go of quite a few people that really didn't add one thing to the company.




Upgrading
By R6Raven on 11/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: Upgrading
By StevoLincolnite on 11/10/2009 8:12:33 AM , Rating: 5
I personally avoid "Upgrading" operating systems, for instance Vista to Windows 7, simply because it's better to just format and start from a fresh clean install.


RE: Upgrading
By invidious on 11/10/2009 8:26:21 AM , Rating: 3
Ya seriously, anyone with IT experience would recommend a fresh install. Especially for those who do not have IT experience as their computers are the ones most likely to be littered with junk/malware.


RE: Upgrading
By reader1 on 11/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: Upgrading
By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 9:42:55 AM , Rating: 5
Why do you disable system restore? That is a GREAT feature and has gotten me out of some real jams in a very short period of time.


RE: Upgrading
By reader1 on 11/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: Upgrading
By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 11:34:12 AM , Rating: 4
So, by using your logic, OSX is a fragile OS since it uses Time Machine.... thanks man, you are really clearling up some misconceptions I had about OSX being such a superior product to windows, it's actually, according to your logic, pretty much the same!


RE: Upgrading
By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 11:45:41 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
by reader1 on November 10, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Time Machine only exists because OSX is a fragile OS.


There, fixed that for ya buddy!


RE: Upgrading
By TSS on 11/10/2009 2:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
Because in the ol' days (don't know if W7 and vista still do this) the system restore would restore anything in the restore point, including viruses.

Hell the only time i used it in XP i used it to get rid of a very very ugly virus, and all it did was install 3 older ones again which each took alot of time to remove in the first place.

Not to mention my virusscanner could find and scan the restore folder, but could not acces anything inside (i had to make it a network folder with sharing rights and everything before i could get in). Took me a long while to figure that one out.

It can be usefull but as soon as i've seen a virus on my PC i'm not toutching it untill the next fresh install.


RE: Upgrading
By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 2:45:38 PM , Rating: 2
Well, that is a problem that is easily remedied.

Once you have a virus, and you have cleaned it up, all you have to do is disable and then re-enable system restore. It will wipe out the old points and start making fresh ones. If the virus problem is gone, the restore points will be just fine.

Easy isn't it?


RE: Upgrading
By noirsoft on 11/10/2009 9:45:16 AM , Rating: 4
Upgrading from XP -> 7 is not advised because of the number of 3rd party apps and drivers that violate the rules (which were published before XP came out but enforced with Vista) which would have to be sought out and removed in the process. It is better to just start clean so you can ensure that only Vista/7 era apps and drivers are installed. If developers had followed the known rules better during XPs lifetime, then upgrades might be feasible.


RE: Upgrading
By reader1 on 11/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: Upgrading
By Akrovah on 11/10/2009 1:59:23 PM , Rating: 1
Not so sure about the apps, but with drivers they do. I'm pretty sure thats what the WHQL certification is for. If you try and install a non WHQL certified driver the OS pops up a warning, basically telling the user that they install at thier own risk.


RE: Upgrading
By n0ebert on 11/10/2009 11:07:47 AM , Rating: 2
Quite true.

People also need to understand that you do not need to format your drive for a fresh install. If you do a new install of Windows 7 (Vista had the same function) it will detect the /windows directory and automatically move all of your document folders (my documents, my pictures, etc..), program files and windows directories into a archive directory called /windows.old so you can still access all of your personal information after the new install. The only downside to this is that you must reinstall all of your applications. Heck you can simply move all of your information into a directory that isn't affected by windows. Create your own folder and move it all there. It will exist post install if you do not format.


RE: Upgrading
By Akrovah on 11/10/2009 2:07:18 PM , Rating: 2
But then you basically ahve two intalls taking up space on your drive, even though only one of them is active.

I think a better option for something similar to what you are talking about is to actually have a separate drive or at the very least a separate partition that all the data you want to keep is stored on. Then when you format and re-isntall you only touch the system drive and leave your data drive/partition alone altogether. The troublesome side to this is a longer post install OS config process if you want to re-direct your user folders to the data drive.


RE: Upgrading
By Akrovah on 11/10/2009 2:09:32 PM , Rating: 2
Granted, this is far and above the average home user's abilities, which I think is the primary target of the in place upgrade options.


RE: Upgrading
By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 9:45:29 AM , Rating: 3
Oh, and just thought I would mention, you should be very careful upgrading any in place OS, Apple also has problem when you do an in place upgrade. You can google PLENTY of people that have had problems upgrading OSX as well as updates causing major problems. So, by your logic, OSX is poorly designed and too complex. That's good to know, thanks!


RE: Upgrading
By amanojaku on 11/10/2009 10:41:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I disable System Restore for the same reason.
The truth revealed: reader1 doesn't own a Mac! Jobs is VERY disappointed to know his favorite Macolyte is a hypocrite.


RE: Upgrading
By kkwst2 on 11/10/2009 9:58:37 AM , Rating: 2
I generally agree, but Vista to Win7 may be the exception. I of course fully backed up my system before upgrading, but upgrading Vista Ult-64 to Win7 Ult-64 was absolutely seamless.

It saved me a ton of time, since I already had my system tweaked the way I want it. In fact, if it didn't go well, I would probably have just restored back to Vista instead of going through reinstalling all my software because I don't have the time right now.


RE: Upgrading
By invidious on 11/10/2009 8:29:23 AM , Rating: 2
Just format one of them, install all of the programs you need, make an image of that (a legal one with nortan ghost or something) and then install that image on each of the seperate PCs with individual product keys.

I used to do this for a living for a public school system and once you get the image made is is excedingly easy to do the rest. Depending on the imaging software you are using you could probably do many of your computers simultaniously.


RE: Upgrading
By Aloonatic on 11/10/2009 8:42:12 AM , Rating: 2
I guess that is dependant on the hardware you have available. If the OP's (similarly small) business is anything like where I work, that plan might not be quite so easy. We have Athlons and P IIIs up to Q6600s. We'll probably leave the older machines be of course, but not every company buys in bulk with identical or even remotely similar machines is what I'm saying.

In most businesses however, the know how should be available, and a fresh install over a short period of time should not be out of the question. Possible a good excuse for a little weekend over time perhaps?

Upgrading from XP for the average home user is a different matter. Many people don't backup, or even have the hardware to do it even if they wanted too. They are so scared about losing their photos and e-mails etc that they will want to upgrade rather than fresh install too.

Yes, I know that a backup should be done before and upgrade too, but you know what I mean :o)


RE: Upgrading
By R6Raven on 11/10/2009 8:52:31 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, that's the issue I have run into. At most, we have about 4 machines with identical hardware and nearly everyone requires different programs, so Ghost is only good for so many.


RE: Upgrading
By SilthDraeth on 11/10/2009 10:42:29 AM , Rating: 2
Why would anyone be using Ghost when you can use a PXE install and deploy Windows to several PCs. Of course this requires actually having a domain, and such...

Then in your domain sort the PCs by location, or function, or software needed in active directory and push out your applications via group policy... At least for a school district...

For a small business of 40 machines, I still see it as a huge time saver, though a small business of that size might not have a true IT person.


RE: Upgrading
By Aloonatic on 11/10/2009 10:55:15 AM , Rating: 2
This is all rather academic really anyway, when talking about a small(ish) business. If the OPs site is like mine, then the machines will invariably just run whichever OS was on it when it was bought, and they wont be buying a site license for all.most of the machines to be installed at the same time anyway.

As much as I would like to here, it's not going to happen. I'll soon be looking after win2000, winXp, Vista, Win7, server2003, and if my boss has any say in the matter, he wants a Mac soon too. Damn you iPhones! *shakes fist at the nearest apple on someone else's desk*

The win2000 machine may have an "accident" soon however. Shhhh, you didn't hear anything from me.... right?


RE: Upgrading
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/10/2009 9:49:27 AM , Rating: 2
You must be new to the IT field if you actually believe that the upgrade option exists for business use.


RE: Upgrading
By 3minence on 11/10/2009 9:56:51 AM , Rating: 2
It does exist, especially when the user lost the original install disks for the oh-so-critical app on their PC. However, upgrades are the rare exception. It's amazing how many problems get resolved with a clean install. It's kinda like a reboot on steroids.


RE: Upgrading
By namechamps on 11/10/2009 10:04:09 AM , Rating: 2
What is this obsession with upgrading? Over the years I have seen so many examples of hard to troubleshoot failures when upgrading the OS. Today I always recommend a clean install. I don't care what OS or what hardware.

Microsoft explained why no upgrade XP -> Windows 7.
1) The upgrade success rate from XP -> Vista was very low which reduces customer satisfaction. While customer may hate upgrading they hate a buggy, crash prone, piece of crap more

2) The drive model changes completely, as well as major changes in registry, and OS/application interaction (like app based volume sliders as just one example).

3) Virtually all XP machines are 32 bit. Microsoft has no 32-64 upgrade path so that locks in all those customer on 32 bit machines even if they have 64 bit capable hardware.

Get over the "I can't upgrade". Clean install just works much better statistically speaking. Microsoft is offering upgrade pricing for XP users so they get the financial benefit.


It's not the economy, PCs aren't advancing.
By reader1 on 11/10/09, Rating: -1
RE: It's not the economy, PCs aren't advancing.
By 3minence on 11/10/2009 9:53:53 AM , Rating: 5
It's been my experience that after 5 years, most PC's are in rather rough condition. At that point hard drives start to crash, power supplies begin to fail, the case starts to look beaten down, etc. Yes, you can buy a new hard drive and put it in or have Geek Squad do it, but frequently people just buy a new PC.

Also, considering your statement about PC's getting cheaper over time (which I agree with), then that's even more reason for people to upgrade. It's not the huge expenditure it used to be.


RE: It's not the economy, PCs aren't advancing.
By Aloonatic on 11/10/2009 10:38:35 AM , Rating: 3
My home PC's 8 years old, and wasn't exactly cutting edge when I bought it either. The main reason why it crashes and or has problems is when I kick it because it's sooooooo slow :-D

I tend to agree that the cycle could be extended for a while, but their always something new and improved that we have not foreseen. If anything, the industry has been a bit stagnant.

New (multi) touch screen PCs and other stuff will probably encourage people to fork out for new PCs though. As might super dooper high definition/3D etc video.


RE: It's not the economy, PCs aren't advancing.
By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 10:46:19 AM , Rating: 3
You are the exception with an 8 year old PC. From my experience in the industry, 5 years is the normal limit for PC's. Around that time, hard drives and power supplies generally start to fail. A lot of people do not open them up, so the cooling is no longer adequate, and the higher heat levels kill them faster.

Also, an 8 year old PC, in all reality, doesn't have enough power to run XP (MAYBE a stripped down clean install) or anything higher than that. So, it's really not adequate regardless of whether or not it runs.


By Aloonatic on 11/10/2009 11:07:41 AM , Rating: 3
Oh yeah, it's not adequate really. At least, not for anything more than web browsing and as a file server. That's why I get frustrated with it :(

We have a strange love hate relationship, it's complicated, so many memories...


By StevoLincolnite on 11/10/2009 11:57:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, an 8 year old PC, in all reality, doesn't have enough power to run XP (MAYBE a stripped down clean install) or anything higher than that. So, it's really not adequate regardless of whether or not it runs.


What a load of rubbish.

8 Years ago was the dawn of the Pentium 4/Athlon XP era, which are more than capable of handling Windows XP, and even Windows 7. (Generally they are faster than an Atom 230, the higher clocked iterations are faster than an Atom 330).

For Instance I have a Palamino Athlon XP 2100+ with 1024mb of DDR400 memory, and a Geforce 6200, which replaced the original Geforce 2 GTS that came with the system.

Not only does the system run Windows XP incredibly well, but it is capable of running Windows 7 alright to boot, and has been perfectly stable all these years. (It's been relegated as my File Server/Music playback/Torrents and Casual games machine, it's chock loaded with Popcap/Gamehouse games, which the system runs fine).

I know plenty of people still using antiquated Pentium 4's and Athlon XP's because they suit there needs perfectly without any issues, despite being more than "5" years old.

Just because something is "Old" doesn't make it crap, as long as it runs fine, it doesn't matter.

Also, Windows XP can run on a system with a 233mhz processor and 64mb of ram, however it would not be a satisfactory experience, such systems would be over a decade old. (The Pentium 2 was released in 1997, which debuted at 233mhz so that's 12 years).


By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 12:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
Like I said, a clean install will work alright for them, but as soon as you start loading up other software, and the install starts to age, it will slow down dramatically. That's just a fact, I deal with these things on a daily basis, I know what I am talking about.

I never said that those machines COULDN'T run XP, I simply said that they don't really have enough power, not really adequate, which they aren't. Can they? Sure, as a business owner would you lose productivity relying on that hardware to run XP-Windows 7? Yes, you would, without a doubt.

So, no, it's not a load of rubbish, regardless of what you think. I never said that THEY COULDN'T run on those machines, I am saying you shouldn't really run it on those machines, the performance difference between a slow dual core machine with 2gb's of memory and an 8 year old machine is night and day.

And, regardless of how many people you know that are using those old machines without any issues, I can point you to twice as many machines within this company alone that are about 5-6 years old that have had PSU problems, hard drive failure, motherboard problems.

Nothing in my original post was factually incorrect, you should NOT rely on an OEM power supply or hard drive that is 5+ years old, that is nearing the end of the useful lifespan. Will some last longer? Sure, but you are playing roulette.


RE: It's not the economy, PCs aren't advancing.
By Reclaimer77 on 11/10/2009 12:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's been my experience that after 5 years, most PC's are in rather rough condition. At that point hard drives start to crash, power supplies begin to fail, the case starts to look beaten down, etc. Yes, you can buy a new hard drive and put it in or have Geek Squad do it, but frequently people just buy a new PC.


lol what in the HELL are you doing to your PC ???

Hard drives, in the huge majority, last more than 5 years. Give me a break. Cases ? Ummm most cases sit there and at the most the average user opens and closes the door to get to the DVD drive, or maybe the side panel get's opened a few times. But how in the hell would that make a case beaten and fall apart ?

If you really think about it, PC's are some of the most reliable things on the planet. I know personally I leave mine running for weeks, sometimes MONTHS on end without being shut down. Or if I do shut it down at the most it get's maybe a day of being off before it's back to another long run cycle. That's pretty amazing when you think about it. I would like to see a car, washer/dryer/dishwasher or whatever run for weeks and months straight without a problem.

Now back on point, it's not that PC's and PC parts are simply getting cheaper. It's also the fact that computing power isn't in as much demand as it was 5-10 years ago. The average PC's computing power in today's multi-core multi-gigamemory and terrabyte+ storage 30000000000000 pixel 3d card etc etc has gotten to the point where we no longer NEED the flavor of the month bleeding edge systems to do what we need to do.

I remember buying a freaking Gateway Pentium III for like 2 grand when I was younger and stupider. The damn thing was obsolete at the end of THAT year !! That simply does not happen today though.


By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 12:55:51 PM , Rating: 3
I usually agree with you, but I have to disagree here. The conventional wisdom, regardless of your experience, is a hard drive that is 5+ years old should not be relied upon. Can and do hard drives last longer that that every day? Sure, they regularly last longer than 5 years, but it widely depends on pc settings, usage, heat buildup due to improper maintenance, etc. There is a reason warranties on drives are roughly set to about 5 years right now, that's because they know how long the hard drives should last, and they know when they should start failing.


RE: It's not the economy, PCs aren't advancing.
By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 10:39:25 AM , Rating: 2
Really? So, you think hard drives, power supplies, motherboards, etc will all last for 10 years?! WOW! Proof positive that you REALLY don't know what you are talking about!


By StevoLincolnite on 11/10/2009 10:42:38 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Really? So, you think hard drives, power supplies, motherboards, etc will all last for 10 years?! WOW! Proof positive that you REALLY don't know what you are talking about!


They can depending on the quality of the components, I have a couple of old Pentium 3 machines which are almost that old.


RE: It's not the economy, PCs aren't advancing.
By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 10:49:15 AM , Rating: 3
I think it depends more on usage than anything. Hard drives fail no matter what. If you are using a consumer grade hard drive that is roughly 5 years old and have ANYTHING important on it, your chances are best you will lose it.

Also, regardless of component quality, power supplies experience bad power, surges, power cooling because people don't clean them, and they go bad. Do some people have computers that run longer than 5 years? Sure, doesn't mean they are adequate to run current software, and they are also computers you shouldn't rely on storing ANY important information.


By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 10:50:33 AM , Rating: 2
"power cooling" meant inadequate cooling.


By StevoLincolnite on 11/10/2009 12:04:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think it depends more on usage than anything. Hard drives fail no matter what. If you are using a consumer grade hard drive that is roughly 5 years old and have ANYTHING important on it, your chances are best you will lose it.


Quality of components play a MASSIVE part, for instance you buy a motherboard with solid capacitors, because they last longer.

With a HDD, you keep your sanity and avoid Hitachi Deathstars... I mean Deskstars. (I still have about a dozen or so fully working 20gb Western Digital HDD's from the late 1990's)

With Ram... Corsair is always a good bet, especially with there heat spreaders to keep the chippy's cool.

With a PSU, well, that's a bit of a hit and miss, the heavier the PSU the more quality components that it has, avoid no-name cheap brands and get something decent like a Corsair or Seasonic which have cleaner power distribution.

The CPU? They aren't something that fail all that often anyway... unless you are unlucky enough to experience Electromigration.


RE: It's not the economy, PCs aren't advancing.
By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 12:59:05 PM , Rating: 2
There is MUCH MUCH more than just quality of components.

What type of power is at your house?
Do you keep the inside of the case clean?
What are your usage habits?
Is your case adequately cooled.

You could buy the MOST expensive parts you could find, and live in a house with bad power, and fry power supplies and motherboards regularly. Or, you could buy the most expensive hard drives you can find, and keep the stacked in a hot case which would kill them.

There are so many other things that are just as important or more important than just buying the best stuff.


RE: It's not the economy, PCs aren't advancing.
By Alexstarfire on 11/10/2009 7:44:06 PM , Rating: 2
In other words, you're pretty much saying that people need to learn how to take care of their computer to keep from wasting money.

Who'd have guessed since that applies to EVERYTHING.


By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 9:48:04 PM , Rating: 2
Well, you can say that, but that wasn't my point.

My main point in all of this was hard drives generally start failing after 5 years. The time after five years is anyones guess, but there is a reason HD manufactures only offer a 5 year warranty, and that is the max warranty.


RE: It's not the economy, PCs aren't advancing.
By Reclaimer77 on 11/10/2009 12:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really? So, you think hard drives, power supplies, motherboards, etc will all last for 10 years?! WOW! Proof positive that you REALLY don't know what you are talking about!


I think if you took a tour of some of the server rooms and schools in your area, you would quickly change your tune.


By weskurtz0081 on 11/10/2009 1:05:03 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't think we were talking about enterprise grade components. I don't need to tour server rooms of schools, I have a server room right through the door that's in my office, I know plenty about consumer hardware, and the differences between consumer setups and enterprise setups.

Server rooms that are setup properly have massive UPS's in them, like ours. They run on much better power that doesn't fluctuate as much, is at the proper tolerances. The equipment in a server room is adequately cooled and maintained. It is kept free of dust buildup etc.

The computer that sits on the floor in some kids dorm room, or on the floor at some dudes apartment does not have all this going for it. Comparing the lifespan of enterprise hardware in a server room to the hardware which is in some dudes house, on the carpet sucking up lint, plugged directly into the wall, is no where near a reasonable comparison.

Even in our server room though, we have hard drives that fail after a few years. We can keep hard drives as long as we want though because we have redundant storage. And, the servers can go down because we have redundant machines.


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki