Intel won't touch Vista - Too broken To Deploy.

[Harvey]

I'm not sure if this belongs in news or the Operating Systems forum. It's not politics, but it's news enough for me to think it could be an interesting discussion. Da Story

Intel won't touch Vista

Comment
Too broken to deploy

By Charlie Demerjian: Monday, 23 June 2008, 4:08 PM

ACCORDING TO A memo circulating a few weeks ago, it looks like Intel is taking a wise decision and avoiding the Broken OS entirely. Yes, Intel is not going to use Vista on its corporate machines... ever.

When a company as tech savvy as Intel, with full source code access and having written several large chunks of the OS, says get stuffed, you know you have a problem. Well, everyone knows MS has a problem, but it is nice to see it codified in such a black and white way though. Reassuring, like a warm cup of tea, or a public kick to the corporate crown jewels.

The real question is what are they going to use? The official answer is 'nothing yet', the one where they try not to offend is 'likely Windows 7', delivered with a pained smile. Since that is shaping up to be Me II SP1a, I am not sure Intel will bite there either unless they suddenly develop a GPU that can run it in that time frame.

So that leaves two other choices, Linux and Mac. Linux is a distinct possibility, they already have an in-house distro that causes employees look nervously around the room when you talk about it. Although it is not a desktop variant, there is no reason that they could not roll one given two years.

The other one is the big white horse in the corner, Mac OS. If there was ever a company that is loyal to Intel, it is Apple. If there was ever a company that could make MacOS work internally, it is Intel. While any marriage with the turtlenecked sociopath is a match made in hell, don't count this one out either.

In the end, you have Intel flipping MS the bird, and telling them what they already know, Vista is undeployable by anyone with a grain of common sense. The impressive thing is that it just might lead to a waving off of MS entirely, they are the underdog for the next round of upgrades.

 

[fskimospy]

I think all the Vista hate is way way way overblown. It just seems like a nerd rage bandwagon to me... and you know that once nerds decide they don't like something they will fight to the death to protect their point of view.

Also, it's the Inquirer. They are an incredibly biased, frequently fact-less news source.

 

[Fern]

Since that is shaping up to be Me II SP1a

Hehe, I'm posting from a stoneage lappie running ME I SP1a

Fern

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

I think all the Vista hate is way way way overblown. It just seems like a nerd rage bandwagon to me... and you know that once nerds decide they don't like something they will fight to the death to protect their point of view.

I understand, and I'm one of those who doesn't like Vista, but THESE nerds go by the name of Intel, which is why I thought it was newsworthy.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Fern

Since that is shaping up to be Me II SP1a

Hehe, I'm posting from a stoneage lappie running ME I SP1a

Fern

For the love of God, why?

 

[CycloWizard]

I've been using Vista for about a year without any problems. Of course, it came on a new, relatively high-end laptop which I specced and bought with Vista in mind.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I've been using Vista for about a year without any problems. Of course, it came on a new, relatively high-end laptop which I specced and bought with Vista in mind.

My brand new Compaq lappy with an Athlon 64 X2 and 2 GB of RAM should be more than enough horsepower to run the copy of Vista that came with it, but it runs MUCH faster since I stripped it off and installed XP Pro SP2.

But that's the tech discussion. The part that strikes me as news is that Intel is dumping it in house.

 

[StageLeft]

I cannot really see my company ever moving to it, either. XP, simply, works just fine and will for the forseeable future.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Harvey
My brand new Compaq lappy came with Vista, and the hardware is fully qualified for the job. It runs much faster since I stripped Vista from it and installed XP.

But that's the tech discussion. The part that strikes me as news is that Intel is dumping it in house.

*shrug* Not much to discuss about that.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I think all the Vista hate is way way way overblown. It just seems like a nerd rage bandwagon to me... and you know that once nerds decide they don't like something they will fight to the death to protect their point of view.

Also, it's the Inquirer. They are an incredibly biased, frequently fact-less news source.

Possibly, however from my experience with Vista in a Corporate Environment is crap. There are also many large corporations whom have switch to Macs.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Fern

Since that is shaping up to be Me II SP1a

Hehe, I'm posting from a stoneage lappie running ME I SP1a

Fern

For the love of God, why?

1. Win ME has no problems for me.

2. I'm wary of switching the OS without being able to get drivers for the onboard gfx and network stuff etc.

3. It's got a PII @ 600 mHZ

4. I'm gonna replace it soon anyway.

Fern

 

[heyheybooboo]

Title: Intel won't touch Vista

I can understand that.

The jump to XP pretty much required a minimum of 1Gb of ram. OMG!

With Vista it seems that bar has been raised to a minimum 2Gb with dubious overall returns. I don't believe the business desktop is clamoring for DX10 or Aero.

Just a good financial decision by Chipzilla ...

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I think all the Vista hate is way way way overblown. It just seems like a nerd rage bandwagon to me... and you know that once nerds decide they don't like something they will fight to the death to protect their point of view.

Also, it's the Inquirer. They are an incredibly biased, frequently fact-less news source.

Possibly, however from my experience with Vista in a Corporate Environment is crap. There are also many large corporations whom have switch to Macs.

There really aren't many large corporations that have switched to Macs at all. They have less then 1% corporate penetration last time I checked.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I've been using Vista for about a year without any problems. Of course, it came on a new, relatively high-end laptop which I specced and bought with Vista in mind.

My brand new Compaq lappy with an Athlon 64 X2 and 2 GB of RAM should be more than enough horsepower to run the copy of Vista that came with it, but it runs MUCH faster since I stripped it off and installed XP Pro SP2.

But that's the tech discussion. The part that strikes me as news is that Intel is dumping it in house.

Hey, I bet it would run even faster with Win 3.11.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Title: Intel won't touch Vista

I can understand that.

The jump to XP pretty much required a minimum of 1Gb of ram. OMG!

With Vista it seems that bar has been raised to a minimum 2Gb with dubious overall returns. I don't believe the business desktop is clamoring for DX10 or Aero.

Just a good financial decision by Chipzilla ...

RAM is dirt cheap and has nothing to do with it. If they switched my computer to vista my $2K digitizer would no longer work, I could not print to the copy machine (great when your printing a few hundred pages), and I would have to replace my inkjet printer at the minimum. Thats just my office.

We purchased 2 new computers that came with Vista on them. After a few days we told them to send us XP or we are sending the computers back. Vista is a flop. It flat out doesn't work out of the box with the rest of my, or my companies, stuff. Thats just ONE issue with Vista.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Fern

Since that is shaping up to be Me II SP1a

Hehe, I'm posting from a stoneage lappie running ME I SP1a

Fern

For the love of God, why?

1. Win ME has no problems for me.

2. I'm wary of switching the OS without being able to get drivers for the onboard gfx and network stuff etc.

3. It's got a PII @ 600 mHZ

4. I'm gonna replace it soon anyway.

Fern

No Win2K discs around?

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I've been using Vista for about a year without any problems. Of course, it came on a new, relatively high-end laptop which I specced and bought with Vista in mind.

My brand new Compaq lappy with an Athlon 64 X2 and 2 GB of RAM should be more than enough horsepower to run the copy of Vista that came with it, but it runs MUCH faster since I stripped it off and installed XP Pro SP2.

But that's the tech discussion. The part that strikes me as news is that Intel is dumping it in house.

Hey, I bet it would run even faster with Win 3.11.

I know you're kidding around, but not comparable.

 

[Lemon law]

When I got a new computer recently, I too specified XP pro after doing quite a bit of research, but in terms of Ram, vista utilizes unused ram much better than XP. And Vista is a more secure OS, but as usual, microsoft adds in way too much bloat and many features I have zero use for. So they managed to make it overall a bad choice.

I certainly hope microsoft learns its lesson with Vista, and comes out with a better choice in a year or two. To start out, why should a new OS require all new device driver's?
I would really like to see microsoft start with XP, rebuild it as a secure OS that handles free ram better, and then make it leaner and quicker.

And if microsoft just keeps rolling out ever more bloated OS's, some other OS will come out of no where and eat all of microsoft's lunch.

 

[Lemon law]

I can also understand why intel is unhappy with Vista. Intel's core business is in selling computer processors, and most people buy that new processor as a completely new computer package with brand new everything. And they don't want to see someone buy a much better computer processor and then tell their friends and neighbors its no faster than what they had before. In short when Vista is the speed boat anchor it Intel drags behind it, it simply does not show Intel in the proper light.

 

[DaveJ]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I think all the Vista hate is way way way overblown. It just seems like a nerd rage bandwagon to me... and you know that once nerds decide they don't like something they will fight to the death to protect their point of view.

Also, it's the Inquirer. They are an incredibly biased, frequently fact-less news source.

Possibly, however from my experience with Vista in a Corporate Environment is crap. There are also many large corporations whom have switch to Macs.

I find this very hard to believe. Enterprise-level support from Apple is pretty much nonexistant, and the hardware is much more expensive than an equivalent PC. Most corps are still loading XP on their machines. All of our new HP boxes come preloaded with Vista but we have "downgrade" rights to load XP SP2. We have no intention of going Vista unless we absolutely cannot avoid it.

 

[Lemon law]

The vista retail version has been out since 1/30/2007 or so and the computers preloaded with vista came out a little earlier.

So round numbers, Vista is 1.5 years old.

There is always consumer and business resistance to the upgrade to a new OS.

So I wonder if there are any good stats if the current Vista resistance is greater than, the same as, or less than the equivalent 1.5 years after the introduction of XP?

 

[kage69]

Can't say I blame them, but I agree it says a lot when a partner of Intel's standing says no thanks to your latest and greatest. Kinda validates some of the rabid anti-Vista types invective actually.

So that leaves two other choices, Linux and Mac. Linux

Feh! Windows XP Pro x64 is reliable and gives me native DirectX support. Pretty much all I need these days.

 

[Jhhnn]

Meh. It's the same deal every time MS makes some major change- win95 broke a lot of older apps and hardware, and the whining was epic. Same with Win2K and XP.

ME? ME was MS' way of convincing everybody that they really, really wanted Win2K to hit the market, pronto. It sucked so desperately that it didn't last long, at all, and lots of folks stayed with Win98 or loaded it onto machines that came with ME...

A lot of the current compatibility problems with vista aren't about MS, but rather about the vendors of the now broken hardware and software. How old is that copier and the digitizer, Darwin333? And why should MS make their stuff compatible back to the dawn of time when the manufacturers won't go to the trouble to write their own drivers for their old stuff, stuff that probably had limited distribution in the first place? I just answered that rhetorical question, didn't I? Because there's no money in it.

Some makers are better than others, however- My sons' new machines running Vista work great with a much older HP722 printer, for example... and that's only because there were about a gazillion of those printers sold, so it was in everybody's interest to develop drivers, even HP's. that's because they're pounding me harder than ever for ink cartridges...

 

[Zebo]

Don't blame them since they are technical people not into bloat, automation, MS branded multimedia integration, or the effeminate Aero Glass theme. I'm sure most still use win2k there.

 

[rockyct]

Unless P&N is the official argument zone on AT, why does this belong in P&N?