I need to convince my corporation to not switch to Vista

[Nothinman]

Considering Vista will be the first widespread consumer 64 bit OS, I can't disagree with you more.

Then you're confused because the two are completely separate issues. There are compatibility issues with moving to Vista and there are issues with running the 64-bit version but the two are orthogonal. People running into the former would run into the same issues if they had the 32-bit version.

Vista 64 is on par with Vista 32 for driver support,

Now it is, a year ago that wasn't the case.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Then you're confused because the two are completely separate issues. There are compatibility issues with moving to Vista and there are issues with running the 64-bit version but the two are orthogonal. People running into the former would run into the same issues if they had the 32-bit version.

Have you actually used Vista 64? The "issues running the 64-bit version" are virtually non-existent. There aren't *any* issues, other than the issues that are simply inherent to Vista. There is an annoying feature when it comes to running signed drivers, but that is not caused by moving to 64-bit, that is caused because Microsoft thought it would be a good idea. That is it! There are no other issues with Vista 64.

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Vista 64 is on par with Vista 32 for driver support,

Now it is, a year ago that wasn't the case.

And this is relevant how? 10 years ago the idea of needing more than 4GB of RAM would have been seen as a joke, but that holds no relevance to today. Today is today, not a year ago, or even a month ago.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Then you're confused because the two are completely separate issues. There are compatibility issues with moving to Vista and there are issues with running the 64-bit version but the two are orthogonal. People running into the former would run into the same issues if they had the 32-bit version.

Have you actually used Vista 64? The "issues running the 64-bit version" are virtually non-existent. There aren't *any* issues, other than the issues that are simply inherent to Vista. There is an annoying feature when it comes to running signed drivers, but that is not caused by moving to 64-bit, that is caused because Microsoft thought it would be a good idea. That is it! There are no other issues with Vista 64.

I think that was his point. Any issues that arise in Vista 32-bit because of software compatibility will be there in Vista 64-bit. It's the drivers you have to worry about with 64-bit. Two totally separate issues.

Nothinman's original statement was made in relation to

I see Vista as basically the growing pain involved with switching over to 64bit.

So basically, you two are saying the same thing. There are issues with going from XP -> Vista and there are issues with going from 32-bit to 64-bit regardless of the OS.

 

[sourceninja]

What we did is put a plan in place to update all of our software to work with vista. The plan is long enough that it will be done before EOL of xp. At that time we will put in our vista migration plan. However, our current thinking is by the time all the software we need works on vista, microsoft will have a new os out, and we will just move to that.

Personally, I think the backlash against vista is unfounded. I used it for a long time on my gaming rig with no problem, the person who now owns my gaming rig also has no issue. I've gone the way of the mac however, so I don't keep up to date much on windows anymore.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: NightDarker
I work for a fortune 200 company and need to convince them to not switch over to Windows Vista. Is there any place I can get information about Microsoft's next operating system? I know why I want to convince the company to not switch, but where can I get information to back this up? There is a lot of situational stuff in our company because we make a lot of our own software for our use that doesn't work in Vista (VB6 compatibility issues).

Anyways, how do you think I should go about doing this? I was thinking of doing some benchmarks, present compatibility issues, and things of the like. What else should I bring up? I plan on making a technical document in which whoever provides good ideas will at least get credit in my paper.

well... from past trend...

win98(good)->windows me(bad) -> win2k (good but not for consumer) -> winxp (good4all)

i would expect

winxp(good)->windows vista(bad)-> windows 7 (good but not for consumer) ->??(good4all)

ya I would definately skip vista...

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: NightDarker
I work for a fortune 200 company and need to convince them to not switch over to Windows Vista. Is there any place I can get information about Microsoft's next operating system? I know why I want to convince the company to not switch, but where can I get information to back this up? There is a lot of situational stuff in our company because we make a lot of our own software for our use that doesn't work in Vista (VB6 compatibility issues).

Anyways, how do you think I should go about doing this? I was thinking of doing some benchmarks, present compatibility issues, and things of the like. What else should I bring up? I plan on making a technical document in which whoever provides good ideas will at least get credit in my paper.

well... from past trend...

win98(good)->windows me(bad) -> win2k (good but not for consumer) -> winxp (good4all)

i would expect

winxp(good)->windows vista(bad)-> windows 7 (good but not for consumer) ->??(good4all)

ya I would definately skip vista...

Nice analysis there. Now tell us why vista is bad?

 

[Nothinman]

ya I would definately skip vista...

And without any empirical evidence at all, nice...

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: Crusty

Nice analysis there. Now tell us why vista is bad?

that was from past trend...

why vista is bad ?

the reason is clear and simple.

vista compatibility issues outweighs adventages over xp

basically, it doesn't offer enough for the hussle of upgrade.

its basically a win2k version of windows me... doesn't offer enough.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Crusty

Nice analysis there. Now tell us why vista is bad?

that was from past trend...

why vista is bad ?

the reason is clear and simple.

I still don't see any reasons.

vista compatibility issues outweighs adventages over xp

Which compatibility issues?

basically, it doesn't offer enough for the hussle of upgrade.

its basically a win2k version of windows me... doesn't offer enough.

Windows 2k was based off of the NT kernel, ME was not. How can you even compare the two of them?

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: Crusty
vista compatibility issues outweighs adventages over xp

Which compatibility issues?
[/quote]
compatiblity issue with online majung
compatibility issue w. sql server 2005
compatiblity issue w. other online game client
compatibility issue w. visual studio 2005 + 2003

maybe i'm unlucky but these are just programs i use...

basically, it doesn't offer enough for the hussle of upgrade.

its basically a win2k version of windows me... doesn't offer enough.

Windows 2k was based off of the NT kernel, ME was not. How can you even compare the two of them?

ME is basically a fancy version of windows 98 (same so-called kernel)
vista is basically a fancy version of win2k (same kernal)

neither offer enough to warrent an upgrade

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID
vista compatibility issues outweighs adventages over xp
Which compatibility issues?

compatiblity issue with online majung
compatibility issue w. sql server 2005
compatiblity issue w. other online game client
compatibility issue w. visual studio 2005 + 2003

maybe i'm unlucky but these are just programs i use...

Thank for finally giving us some concrete examples, although that's hardly anything detailed. Any software issues are usually related to the vendor not updating their software for various reasons. There is no excuse for any supported piece of software to not have been updated by now, and if it's not updated it's most likely because the software is old and is not supported anymore. It is not Microsoft's fault nor concern if a company can not keep it's software updated.

Further, I don't know what "issue" you are referring to with sql server 2k5, but I'm guessing it has something to do with Admin rights much like VS.NET does. On top of that, I would hardly call having to run a program with Admin rights a compatibility issue.

basically, it doesn't offer enough for the hussle of upgrade.

its basically a win2k version of windows me... doesn't offer enough.

Windows 2k was based off of the NT kernel, ME was not. How can you even compare the two of them?

ME is basically a fancy version of windows 98 (same so-called kernel)
vista is basically a fancy version of win2k (same kernal)

neither offer enough to warrent an upgrade

Vista is hardly a "fancy" version of win2k. The security model of the OS was changed between XP and Vista with the addition of UAC, as well as some under the hood driver changes to prevent certain types of drivers from bringing down an entire system(ie sound drivers).

There are many features in Vista that were not present in Win2k or in WinXP, so it's hardly a "fancy" version.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: Crusty
It is not Microsoft's fault nor concern if a company can not keep it's software updated.

one of the strongest reason Microsoft has its success is due to its great backward compatibility. Windows XP was backward compatible with many, many older softwares that wasn't supported by windows 2000, which is one of the reasons why xp is so successful.

Vista is hardly a "fancy" version of win2k. The security model of the OS was changed between XP and Vista with the addition of UAC, as well as some under the hood driver changes to prevent certain types of drivers from bringing down an entire system(ie sound drivers).

UAC is one of the reason i hate vista.... users should not have access to install applications.. while admin users should be careful and be responsible when installing applicatiions.

i wasn't aware of the driver changes to provide stabiliity, i guess its a good thing but its not entirely necessary... as drivers are /supposed install-once applications, once you get a good working driver, it should keep working. freqeunt driver changes on working driver is not generally best practice.

These are good changes, but what i'm saying is, its not enough reason for me to upgrade.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Crusty
It is not Microsoft's fault nor concern if a company can not keep it's software updated.

one of the strongest reason Microsoft has its success is due to its great backward compatibility. Windows XP was backward compatible with many, many older softwares that wasn't supported by windows 2000, which is one of the reasons why xp is so successful.

Vista is hardly a "fancy" version of win2k. The security model of the OS was changed between XP and Vista with the addition of UAC, as well as some under the hood driver changes to prevent certain types of drivers from bringing down an entire system(ie sound drivers).

UAC is one of the reason i hate vista.... users should not have access to install applications.. while admin users should be careful and be responsible when installing applicatiions.

i wasn't aware of the driver changes to provide stabiliity, i guess its a good thing but its not entirely necessary... as drivers are /supposed install-once applications, once you get a good working driver, it should keep working. freqeunt driver changes on working driver is not generally best practice.

These are good changes, but what i'm saying is, its not enough reason for me to upgrade.

Sound drivers were taken out of the kernel system to improve stability( a lot of the crashes ,BSOD were caused by sound drivers),I think you find most of the problems were probably down to Creative drivers,ironicially even now their Vista driver support is not that great(head over to their forums and see all the complaints),when certain companies get lazy and cannot offer decent support for their products I don't blame Microsoft for deciding to take this action,its not a ball breaker anyway.

Vista has a lot more changes improvements then that , infact you could argue XP was hardly any better then 2K,while Vista has had a lot of security and other changes.UAC is not a big deal personally,you can either have it enabled/disabled or even download the various UAC tweak programs that are available over the net,when people moan over that I think what the heck an extra click big deal.The way I look at it is if UAC helps stop spreading infected software then those that are on XP ,2K etc then its a good thing in my books.


I wonder what users will complain about when Windows 7 arrives,I better reserve my seat.

 

[Nothinman]

And this is relevant how? 10 years ago the idea of needing more than 4GB of RAM would have been seen as a joke, but that holds no relevance to today. Today is today, not a year ago, or even a month ago.

It's relevant because it's the source of just about all of the 64-bit migration pains that people felt when Vista first came out. Now that most hardware has updated 64-bit drivers the pain is gone. But that still doesn't take away from the fact that the 64-bit pain was completely separate from the XP->Vista pain.

its basically a win2k version of windows me... doesn't offer enough.

That statement alone proves that you have no idea what you're talking about.

UAC is one of the reason i hate vista.... users should not have access to install applications.. while admin users should be careful and be responsible when installing applicatiions.

Regular users don't have access to install applications in Vista. UAC prompts require an admin password if you're not in the admins group.

i wasn't aware of the driver changes to provide stabiliity, i guess its a good thing but its not entirely necessary... as drivers are /supposed install-once applications, once you get a good working driver, it should keep working. freqeunt driver changes on working driver is not generally best practice.

Sadly in the Windows world that isn't the case, driver updates are frequent and driver problems are just as frequent. Especially with enthusiasts constantly looking for the best performing driver.

These are good changes, but what i'm saying is, its not enough reason for me to upgrade.

Maybe not right now but XP's pretty long in the tooth, it's already a huge PITA to install on recent hardware and with MS focusing on Vista it's going to be XP with the compatibility problems eventually.

 

[Saint Nick]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
What we did is put a plan in place to update all of our software to work with vista. The plan is long enough that it will be done before EOL of xp. At that time we will put in our vista migration plan. However, our current thinking is by the time all the software we need works on vista, microsoft will have a new os out, and we will just move to that.

Personally, I think the backlash against vista is unfounded. I used it for a long time on my gaming rig with no problem, the person who now owns my gaming rig also has no issue. I've gone the way of the mac however, so I don't keep up to date much on windows anymore.

At the moment, that is what our company is doing. We have literally hundreds of apps that we are bring down to our test lab to check out the software in Vista. We'll definitely be done testing on Vista before the EOL on WinXP.

 

[stlcardinals]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Crusty
vista compatibility issues outweighs adventages over xp

Which compatibility issues?

compatiblity issue with online majung
compatibility issue w. sql server 2005
compatiblity issue w. other online game client
compatibility issue w. visual studio 2005 + 2003

maybe i'm unlucky but these are just programs i use...

basically, it doesn't offer enough for the hussle of upgrade.

its basically a win2k version of windows me... doesn't offer enough.

Windows 2k was based off of the NT kernel, ME was not. How can you even compare the two of them?

ME is basically a fancy version of windows 98 (same so-called kernel)
vista is basically a fancy version of win2k (same kernal)

neither offer enough to warrent an upgrade

SQL 2005 Compatibility was fixed with SQL 2005 SP2.
Visual Studio Compatibility was fixed with VS 2k5 SP1.[/quote]

Try updating the software before you actually try to use it.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: stlcardinals

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Crusty
vista compatibility issues outweighs adventages over xp

Which compatibility issues?

compatiblity issue with online majung
compatibility issue w. sql server 2005
compatiblity issue w. other online game client
compatibility issue w. visual studio 2005 + 2003

maybe i'm unlucky but these are just programs i use...

basically, it doesn't offer enough for the hussle of upgrade.

its basically a win2k version of windows me... doesn't offer enough.

Windows 2k was based off of the NT kernel, ME was not. How can you even compare the two of them?

ME is basically a fancy version of windows 98 (same so-called kernel)
vista is basically a fancy version of win2k (same kernal)

neither offer enough to warrent an upgrade

SQL 2005 Compatibility was fixed with SQL 2005 SP2.
Visual Studio Compatibility was fixed with VS 2k5 SP1.

Try updating the software before you actually try to use it.[/quote]

But but using the latest and greatest software is so scary!

 

[funkbass81]

that does it, if online majung wont work, we're not upgrading!

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I see Vista as basically the growing pain involved with switching over to 64bit.

Except the two aren't related at all. The growing pains are purely XP->Vista pains, if you install the 64-bit version it might be slightly worse depending on your hardware's driver situation but that's about it.

So you're saying there'd be just as many headaches and problems if Microsoft didn't have to put forth any effort into providing two fundamentally separate but otherwise identical versions of Vista?

 

[Nothinman]

So you're saying there'd be just as many headaches and problems if Microsoft didn't have to put forth any effort into providing two fundamentally separate but otherwise identical versions of Vista?

Yes, pretty much, because they're "otherwise identical". The differences between Vista32 and Vista64 are extremely small compared to the differences between XP and Vista.

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

So you're saying there'd be just as many headaches and problems if Microsoft didn't have to put forth any effort into providing two fundamentally separate but otherwise identical versions of Vista?

Yes, pretty much, because they're "otherwise identical". The differences between Vista32 and Vista64 are extremely small compared to the differences between XP and Vista.

So small that unless you're paying attention, you'd never notice.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: stlcardinals

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Crusty
vista compatibility issues outweighs adventages over xp

Which compatibility issues?

compatiblity issue with online majung
compatibility issue w. sql server 2005
compatiblity issue w. other online game client
compatibility issue w. visual studio 2005 + 2003

maybe i'm unlucky but these are just programs i use...

basically, it doesn't offer enough for the hussle of upgrade.

its basically a win2k version of windows me... doesn't offer enough.

Windows 2k was based off of the NT kernel, ME was not. How can you even compare the two of them?

ME is basically a fancy version of windows 98 (same so-called kernel)
vista is basically a fancy version of win2k (same kernal)

neither offer enough to warrent an upgrade

SQL 2005 Compatibility was fixed with SQL 2005 SP2.
Visual Studio Compatibility was fixed with VS 2k5 SP1.

Try updating the software before you actually try to use it.

yes the software was fixed if you already have it installed.
[/quote]

installer was not fixed, so if you don't already have it installed it won't work.

sql 2008 works though, but i doubt companies would upgrade for the solo purpose of compatibility... especially in small / medium sized companies. cost of software + upgrade downtime / problem ...

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: stlcardinals

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Crusty
vista compatibility issues outweighs adventages over xp

Which compatibility issues?

compatiblity issue with online majung
compatibility issue w. sql server 2005
compatiblity issue w. other online game client
compatibility issue w. visual studio 2005 + 2003

maybe i'm unlucky but these are just programs i use...

basically, it doesn't offer enough for the hussle of upgrade.

its basically a win2k version of windows me... doesn't offer enough.

Windows 2k was based off of the NT kernel, ME was not. How can you even compare the two of them?

ME is basically a fancy version of windows 98 (same so-called kernel)
vista is basically a fancy version of win2k (same kernal)

neither offer enough to warrent an upgrade

SQL 2005 Compatibility was fixed with SQL 2005 SP2.
Visual Studio Compatibility was fixed with VS 2k5 SP1.

Try updating the software before you actually try to use it.

yes the software was fixed if you already have it installed.

installer was not fixed, so if you don't already have it installed it won't work.

sql 2008 works though, but i doubt companies would upgrade for the solo purpose of compatibility... especially in small / medium sized companies. cost of software + upgrade downtime / problem ...[/quote]

What is wrong with the installer? I installed VS.NET 2005 on a Vista 64-bit without any problems. Afterwards I simply applied the service pack, set VS to run as administrator and haven't looked back since.

On top of that, I do remember the installer even telling me I needed to update VS in order to run it on Vista 64-bit.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: Crusty

What is wrong with the installer? I installed VS.NET 2005 on a Vista 64-bit without any problems. Afterwards I simply applied the service pack, set VS to run as administrator and haven't looked back since.

On top of that, I do remember the installer even telling me I needed to update VS in order to run it on Vista 64-bit.

well, depends on which version of vista/ configuration you have i guess..

we had home version , and the installer just die in the middle.. things just disappeared..

yes it does warn you to apply sp2..

I only tried it 5 times, I'm sure if i keep trying it might eventually work.. but we shouldn't be going through that...

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: JACKDRUID

Originally posted by: Crusty

What is wrong with the installer? I installed VS.NET 2005 on a Vista 64-bit without any problems. Afterwards I simply applied the service pack, set VS to run as administrator and haven't looked back since.

On top of that, I do remember the installer even telling me I needed to update VS in order to run it on Vista 64-bit.

well, depends on which version of vista/ configuration you have i guess..

we had home version , and the installer just die in the middle.. things just disappeared..

yes it does warn you to apply sp2..

I only tried it 5 times, I'm sure if i keep trying it might eventually work.. but we shouldn't be going through that...

Sounds like a misconfiguration problem somewhere along the line. This was on a pretty fresh install of Vista with SP1 slipstreamed with all of the UAC controls untouched.