I need to convince my corporation to not switch to Vista

[IGBT]

..if your employeer upgrades every few years you may have no choice. all our xp boxes get dumped at the end of this year and the new boxes will have vista.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

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.

Still don't think we're on the same page. What I'm saying is that if Microsoft didn't have to focus any resources into developing a 64 bit version, that the transition would be smoother from XP to Vista.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

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.

Still don't think we're on the same page. What I'm saying is that if Microsoft didn't have to focus any resources into developing a 64 bit version, that the transition would be smoother from XP to Vista.

That's an extremely pointless statement. They did have to focus resources, and there is a 64-bit version. We're not talking about the past here, nor any 'whatif' statements.

Since you went there, if MS didn't have to focus on 64-bit they would have had more time to put "features" into Vista thus giving the opportunity for even more problems. See where I'm going? You can come up any reasoning based on something that didn't happen.

 

[RebateMonger]

I had a client that'd paid for a custom Microsoft Access application and didn't want to dump it. The original (non-professional) Access developer wrote it to run under Access 97 and didn't package the application with a run-time version. So everybody had to be running full Access 97 on their PC. The application wouldn't run under MS Access 2003, and the developer didn't know how to convert it to run.

By the time I got into the picture, the required Access 97 was four-generations old. It had to be installed on every new PC. Every time a PC arrived, I had to REMOVE Office 2003, install Acess 97, delete some fonts (believe it or not, this is required when you need to install Access 97 onto a recent PC), and then re-install Office 2003. It added an hour to the installation of every new PC.

The "lesson" that I came away with is that it's probably best to fix custom applications as incompatibilities show up. I don't think that Vista is going away.

 

[JACKDRUID]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
I had a client that'd paid for a custom Microsoft Access application and didn't want to dump it. The original (non-professional) Access developer wrote it to run under Access 97 and didn't package the application with a run-time version. So everybody had to be running full Access 97 on their PC. The application wouldn't run under MS Access 2003, and the developer didn't know how to convert it to run.

actually, you'd still need access 97 to run it even if it was compiled to a mde file...
its actually good that its not compiled so you still have all the source code available to you. The developer is probably too lazy to do the conversion for you... but since you have the source code, you can always do it yourself.