Comments on: Explaining a Vista ban

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has put a moratorium on using Windows Vista, but that's business as usual, says agency's CIO.

[thedreaming]

Good Strategy

It's a good strategy to ban vista and wait and see if it really makes their lives any easier or the work day more efficent. Most businesses are in no hurry to install vista partly because of possible software/hardware conflicts, but mostly because of it's high price.

What I've been reading around the web is to simply wait until service pack 1 is released, then most of the hardware driver issues should be delt with.

[timr999]

vista Ban....Finally Common Sense Prevails

It is only good sense to test a new OS, or any application, before implementing it. We have in the past bought into the ads saying the new OS would be better, etc. only to find all sorts of issues with it that shut down our busnesses and personal personal computers. So I think a Ban on Vista is quite appropriate as just routinely acceptig a new OS got us all into trouble. My office uses Windows XP, but the IT Dept. gets all of its support from Dell as they were easier to work with in problem resolution on our large network. Just iplementing the "latest" turned out to be not the greatest resulting in huge loss of productivity while the trasition took place...while the so-called bugs were worked out. But this process can take months or loner.....so test the new before imlementing it. At least we are doing that now as opposed to in the past just accepting a new version of an OS as better. While issues work out over time, time is money.

[webdev511]

IE7, Vista...Suprise!

It's like all these companies were caught off guard that IE7 and Vista were being released. They react like MS didn't have any Beta or CTP releases and just sprung it on us out of the blue.

Yes, I understand that there are going to be issues for a while, but don't pretend like it was some big secret.

[ferricoxide]

What's Your Point

Businesses, by nature, are conservative. Why? Because rash decisions can cost big money or even a corporation's existence. The bigger the install base, the more daunting the proposal an upgrade is.

Remember, businesses aren't some uber-leet flake sitting at home having to worry only about one desktop system.

[jones_8099]

Please, like a Beta is going to help...

A Beta or CTP release is useless to the federal government and
businesses where security is the most important issue. A Beta
only gives you a look at what the software SHOULD be like not
necessarily what it WILL be like. To ensure that software is safe
for widespread deployment the final release needs to be
evaluated.

And as far as IE7 goes I would dump it altogether until MS
makes it completely W3C compliant. Because right now you can
design an HTML 4.01 site with CSS that is completely W3C
compliant and it will display correctly in all the major browsers
except IE on a windows PC.

[expatincebu]

Don't waste my tax money!

The cost of Vista (any MS product for that matter) is not worth it. Government should only use open source and save money instead of spending it for a change. Then if we could just get them to stop wasting money on our bloated military and useless wars we would have it made.

[jones_8099]

First off...

Our Military is not bloated. Our Military is one of the most
important assets we have, second only to Democracy. Compared to
most countries, percentage wise, we spend very little on the
Military. I agree with your opinion about open source and the
Military is already using forms of Linux on some of their
computers. However after that I disagree with you. The war we are
currently involved in is anything but useless and the outcome will
shape the way the world looks in the future. This war was well on
its way before we became involved.

[Phillep_H]

War today.

We have been in an undeclared war with Islam ever since the US put together a merchant fleet, over 200 years ago.

Most religions grow up and stop trying to take over the world. Islam has not. Most of the wars on the planet involve Moslems as the aggressors, sometimes against other Moslem groups.

Fight, die, be enslaved, or convert to a religion that makes that Phelps group look like laid back pot smokers.

[imacpwr]

My employer will never upgrade to Vista..

At least not as long as my current computer is still running. The
thing barely has the power to run XP far less Vista so I figure an
upgrade (like our XP upgrade was) is at least 2 years down the
road.

[Mister Winky]

What's their policy on upgrading Oracle, Red Hat & Adobe products?

Here's a bright idea for you enterprising C-Net reporters: why don't you ask Simon about the NIST's upgrade policy when Oracle, Red Hat and Adobe release new products?

Do you think the NIST rolls those products directly into production the minute they're released?

Why don't you also ask him if "it makes sense to upgrade to RHEL5/Oracle 10g/Acrobat 8.0 when RHEL4/Oracle 9/Acrobat 7.0 are not broken."

It's painfully obvious that you're trying to manufacture a story around Vista. In our environment, we're allowing some users to deploy IE7, Office 2007 and Vista, but we're warning them that our testing is still underway (our environment is not locked down in nature) so compatiblity is not guaranteed. Here's another newsflash: we haven't upgraded everyone from Firefox 1.5 to 2.0 yet, either. You read correctly -- we're even TESTING a Firefox release before deploying it!!! We must be nuts, right?

What's newsworthy about an IT organization acting reponsibly by testing new products thoroughly before deploying them? Aside from an obvious attempt to create controversy where there is none, why treat Vista any differently than anything else in the marketplace?

I can see the headlines already for March, 2008: "Some customers have STILL not deployed Vista."

-Mister Winky

[mbjr]

Because it's all about...

...drama.

Seriously. Majority of the masses HATE Microsoft (well... those that actually care... or... something). Post an article with a drama heading about people banning Vista and you'll have readers flock to the website like ants at a picnic on a cake.

Nobody's really gonna care about testing and incompatibility issues with open source software. I mean...well...it's free.

[nonicks]

I agree....

CNET stinks sometime..
All they do is to attract more visitors by MS Bashing.

Seems C|NET is try to popularise themselves by talking what MS bashers wanna hear. publicity through spreading -ve. ***too BAD***

I see C|NET grabs a lot of news from the web...

did any of us got to see.. this one ...

http://www.indianpad.com/view/43434
or
http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3667201

wake up guys..

be a Journo.. and not B'jorno ;-)

[kbckc]

Microsoft may be slidng down the back side of the curve

The much late release of Vista may foretell the decline of Microsoft dominance in the O/S universe. Every source of review and critique states that Vista is not in any way a needed remake or upgrade, but just warmed over XP. If we recall the evolutionary history of Microsoft and its product releases, the company has always been motivated to catch up with Apple O/S functionality and sophistication. Said another way, Microsoft has never really innovated anything. They didn't even create the original DOS products that launched their dominance in the industry. I am not trying to understate the significance of what they have accomplished. I am just suggesting that superior product invention and development has never been their long suite. They mostly try to copy key features of well designed products, then out-market their source of inspiration. They have been geniuses at that.

But what if there happens to be no currently available target or source of inspiration? But the gnomes of Wall Street are making noises that perhaps this industry giant has hit their inevitable wall? Was the market asking for Vista? Of course not. In fact, a remarkable number of businesses are still living with Windwos 2k, sp4 with no immediate plans to move to XP. That says a lot! So Vista is an effort to bring something that seems fresh even if it isn't, and rally the troops as well as give the equipment manufacturers something new to sell. The initial take off for this strategy appears to be very bumpy.

All organizations that grow into institutional status eventually crest the top of the curve and start down the back side. Institutionalized companies stop looking outside themselves and turn inward. They lose their desire and ability to serve real market needs and can only focus on serving themselves. I think the most exciting question our industry should be seeking answers for now is what and who will be next? It probably won't be Microsoft. There are limits to how far a company can go when it is completely lacking the inventor gene, and they have gone impressively far in spite of that fact. But they are probably coming to the end of their reign.

[Mister Winky]

I largely agree, but...

I largely agree with your perspective, but I'd add that it could be a long (likely profitable) ride down for the giant.

There's no question that OSes have become largely commodotized these days. There are several mature options and you can do most anything you want on any of them (within reason -- they all have strengths and weaknesses). An OS is just a baseline platform, a means to tie people into more profitable product lines offered by OS vendors be it support contracts, fancy hardware, software & consulting, etc.

MS has not been a growth company for 5+ years. They're more like an oil company or a telco: slow to move on new initiatives, but big enough to recover when the fall behind.

MS will likely never again enjoy the near lock on personal computing that the enjoyed a few years ago, especially as computing spreads throughout developing nations who care less about foreign brands and intellectual property. That said, people have been predicting MS' demise for a decade now and they've really not gone anywhere.

Look at it this way: even if Apple and all the Linux distros combined could take 5% of MS' OS market share per year (a highly aggressive, probably unlikely scenario), MS would still be the majority player in the OS market for another decade or more.

Never underestimate the power of corporate cash in large quantities. ;)

-Mister Winky

[kaptandrews]

Just wondering

How many PCs does Redmond have that are running Vista? With all the hardware and software issue to tend with...this must have been a major upgrade for MS themselves. Does anyone know if this info could be found out?

[WulfTheSaxon]

Firefox

If they're already going to have to test a new browser (Internet Explorer 7), why not take the opportunity to switch to Firefox?

Firefox is more secure, has improved usability, and is easier to learn (it looks more like IE6 than IE7 does :P).

[Phillep_H]

Learning new programs

I still have 98SE on my home computer. Microsoft changes so much with each upgrade that I might as well switch to *nix when I finally do upgrade to a better computer, there will be about the same amount to learn either way.

[rjpotts]

The Fed dosen't use XP

The majority of the federal agencies today are still using W2K on the desktop. If they are not comfortable with moving to XP why would they move to Vista?

What does Vista have to offer that W2K and XP don't (besides the eye candy). Before they upgrade to Vista they would have to upgrade their desktops hardware in order to support it. Vista would also have to be hardened to meet federal standards. There is no way they would install a shrink wrapped version of the product. Many of the features would need to be locked down to make it acceptable for use.

[rboblee]

The Fed does use XP as XP Pro

Beg to differ - Some underfunded agencies are still on Windows 2000 - but any Fed PD worth its USB 2.0 salt will be using Windows XP Pro. Just ask the hucksters outside of the Kandehar Airbase in Afghanistan where they find their memory sticks ...

[WJeansonne]

TCO Higher With Open Source

It's only a matter of time before the agency wakes up and smells the coffee, so to speak. They'll install the latest Windows and Office out of sheer conformity. And this is a good thing. The total cost of ownership of open source is higher than Windows and Office, and once NIST discovers the sheer horror of finding adequate one-stop shop support, they'll dump any open source projects in heart beat.

[fcekuahd]

Haw haw haw -- good one!

I think I just woke up and smelled an astroturfing moron. And when you're saying "adequate one-stop shop support" -- I hope you're not trying to imply that this can be found at Microsoft. Microsoft's support is a hideous useless shambles. You end up with people who know nothing, don't speak English, don't take responsibility for getting back to you, and don't know who can solve your problem. When you call, you can hear them typing in a search on the MS knowledge base, and quoting you the same articles that you've already dismissed.

[LinuxGeeksRule]

That's too funny

ROFLMAO! No, it's not a "good thing" to install crap just for the sake of "conformity." A good thing would be for them to realize that everything made by Micro$loth is bloated, overpriced, slow, unreliable, insecure crap and dump all of it. Now, THAT would be progress.

[ralfthedog]

Linux has much better support.

Windows TCO is much higher than that of Linux. Red Hat has far better support than Microsoft ever will. Linux has far fewer issues than Windows. For us, Windows is bug after bug. Linux just works.

We would pay ten times as much for Linux up front as we would for Windows and it would still be a bargain.