NIST hit MS Vista with a BAN stick!

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I don't see why all the Vista fanboys get so worked up about this. Lots of businesses aren't going to touch Vista right now. Even Intel said they weren't going to use it before service pack one came out.

Speaking on behalf of fanboys (or me at least)..

I'm not worked up about this at all. Given the size of the org an the buracracy involved this might actually be a good move for them and it has nothing to do with Vista. I'm quite sure they'll end up choosing Vista and having great luck with it when the time comes.

I am pretty intolorant of fud though. Be it against Vista, Ubuntu, whatever.

Speaking of FUD...Intel isn't waiting on SP1. They are already starting to use Vista. I know firsthand.

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I don't see why all the Vista fanboys get so worked up about this. Lots of businesses aren't going to touch Vista right now. Even Intel said they weren't going to use it before service pack one came out.

Vista is the most secure and productive Windows OS. Companies are already preparing to migrate to Windows Vista Business/Enterprise and Longhorn server. I know one company ordered 7000 licenses just to setup a test environment. This is not fanboyism you cannot run XP much longer, sooner or later you will be using Vista. People always yell and shout everytime an OS is released by Microsoft, i suggest you take your time and study how technology works indepth instead of wasting your breath.

I'm currently at a company of over 150.000 employees, and like many other big companies they're waiting with Vista.
Nothing special with Vista about that though, any sane company of considerable size would wait, upgrading 150.000+ desktops isn't exactly cheap, having to downgrade because some archaic application that everyone depends on would kinda suck.

Would be the same if they were running Linux, OS/2, or whatever else you may prefer, it's just common sense really.

Why do you think Microsoft released RTM back in November 2006? It's for companies to test compatibility and stability issues, train employees especially the IT Team and also so that product manufacturers can make use of the time to build compatible hardware and program device dirvers (which sadly didn't happen when I look at my GeForce Drivers). Its a natural cycle with ever MS OS release, it creates jobs and maybe thats why its so popular.

btw i'm not in IT team, i'm a developer lol

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I don't see why all the Vista fanboys get so worked up about this. Lots of businesses aren't going to touch Vista right now. Even Intel said they weren't going to use it before service pack one came out.

Vista is the most secure and productive Windows OS. Companies are already preparing to migrate to Windows Vista Business/Enterprise and Longhorn server. I know one company ordered 7000 licenses just to setup a test environment. This is not fanboyism you cannot run XP much longer, sooner or later you will be using Vista. People always yell and shout everytime an OS is released by Microsoft, i suggest you take your time and study how technology works indepth instead of wasting your breath.

I'm currently at a company of over 150.000 employees, and like many other big companies they're waiting with Vista.
Nothing special with Vista about that though, any sane company of considerable size would wait, upgrading 150.000+ desktops isn't exactly cheap, having to downgrade because some archaic application that everyone depends on would kinda suck.

Would be the same if they were running Linux, OS/2, or whatever else you may prefer, it's just common sense really.

Why do you think Microsoft released RTM back in November 2006? It's for companies to test compatibility and stability issues, train employees especially the IT Team and also so that product manufacturers can make use of the time to build compatible hardware and program device dirvers (which sadly didn't happen when I look at my GeForce Drivers). Its a natural cycle with ever MS OS release, it creates jobs and maybe thats why its so popular.

btw i'm not in IT team, i'm a developer lol

Of course major customers are going to get it early, including pre-releases, but big companies move slow, for better or worse.
For example, I believe the current plan around here is to start upgrading in Q3, assuming there are no hiccups in the testing.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: Aberforth

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I don't see why all the Vista fanboys get so worked up about this. Lots of businesses aren't going to touch Vista right now. Even Intel said they weren't going to use it before service pack one came out.

Vista is the most secure and productive Windows OS. Companies are already preparing to migrate to Windows Vista Business/Enterprise and Longhorn server. I know one company ordered 7000 licenses just to setup a test environment. This is not fanboyism you cannot run XP much longer, sooner or later you will be using Vista. People always yell and shout everytime an OS is released by Microsoft, i suggest you take your time and study how technology works indepth instead of wasting your breath.

I'm currently at a company of over 150.000 employees, and like many other big companies they're waiting with Vista.
Nothing special with Vista about that though, any sane company of considerable size would wait, upgrading 150.000+ desktops isn't exactly cheap, having to downgrade because some archaic application that everyone depends on would kinda suck.

Would be the same if they were running Linux, OS/2, or whatever else you may prefer, it's just common sense really.

Why do you think Microsoft released RTM back in November 2006? It's for companies to test compatibility and stability issues, train employees especially the IT Team and also so that product manufacturers can make use of the time to build compatible hardware and program device dirvers (which sadly didn't happen when I look at my GeForce Drivers). Its a natural cycle with ever MS OS release, it creates jobs and maybe thats why its so popular.

btw i'm not in IT team, i'm a developer lol

Of course major customers are going to get it early, including pre-releases, but big companies move slow, for better or worse.
For example, I believe the current plan around here is to start upgrading in Q3, assuming there are no hiccups in the testing.

First, I'm not disagreeing with you at all. Getting solid testing and planning in place is the only way to go.

However, some of your competitors may already be done. It kind of depends on how much emphasis your company has on IT. Some view IT as a major expense, some view it as a way to get an edge on the competition. The former still have crusty boxes sitting around with decade old apps and have major costs and headaches with every new release of anything. Their expense worries have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The latter have joined the MS beta (and other companies) programs and are often rolling things out at day 0 because months of testing is already complete and MS has reviewed their rollout plans.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Sunner
Of course major customers are going to get it early, including pre-releases, but big companies move slow, for better or worse.
For example, I believe the current plan around here is to start upgrading in Q3, assuming there are no hiccups in the testing.

First, I'm not disagreeing with you at all. Getting solid testing and planning in place is the only way to go.

However, some of your competitors may already be done. It kind of depends on how much emphasis your company has on IT. Some view IT as a major expense, some view it as a way to get an edge on the competition. The former still have crusty boxes sitting around with decade old apps and have major costs and headaches with every new release of anything. Their expense worries have become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The latter have joined the MS beta (and other companies) programs and are often rolling things out at day 0 because months of testing is already complete and MS has reviewed their rollout plans.

Well, this company is one of MS's biggest partners, and I would guess by volume one of their biggest customers
Considering these are hardly business secrets, combined with the fact that the company would probably be easy enough to guess if anyone cared, I might as well mention that it's HP

And it's not really "my competitors", I'm just a consultant, unfortunately a tad under worked though...

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: SSSnail
PWNED!!!!

According to the formal agenda for the meeting, NIST technology workers will attend a session entitled "Windows Vista Security" to discuss "the current ban of this operating system on NIST networks." NIST officials weren't immediately available to comment.

Baawaahahahahahaha..... haha

Sorry, just bad reporting. This is SOP for many corps and groups. Until it has been vetted and certified as network safe and will work on existing hardware, these groups will send out a memo telling no one to install it. "Banned" is just the result of being a journalist reporting it.

History - Windows 95's IPX implementation caused a bug in Novell servers with routing turned on to pass on an IPX Type-20 packet and drop the routing table (a New packet). The real routers would pass on this new packet to the domains where the Novell servers are. In a split horizon, suddenly there were 10's of thousands of IPX packets from a single broadcast packet from the W95 client (NT did it too). Critical networks became flooded and stopped responding. Folks learned to NOT put new stuff on without testing it first. There are other examples, but this is one I had to always mitigate until we got rid of the Netware servers that were routing.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Word of NIST's Windows Vista ban comes a week after InformationWeek revealed that the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration have both imposed similar blackouts on the operating system, as well as on Microsoft Office 2007 and Internet Explorer 7.

USDOT and the FAA have banned it. For now. They're in a testing period with both Vista and IE 7. NIST is probably doing the same thing, making sure their stuff works before committing to a MAJOR rollout like that.

Of course the FAA may be a bit more serious about it than most:

FAA CIO Dave Bowen told InformationWeek that he may forego upgrading the aviation safety agency's computers to Microsoft's latest offerings in favor of desktops running some combination of Linux and Google Apps, Google's new online suite of office productivity tools.

To recap: Wait and see if the ban is permanent.

The translation of that quote from Bowen goes something like this: I pay $2 million a year in licensing fees to Microsoft, and our volume agreement is up for renegotiation.

As for NIST banning Vista on their networks, it's a brand-new operating system. Doesn't seem that startling to me. There are probably a lot of corporations that have bans on it at the moment as well. It will get rolled when IT is ready to roll it, and until they are they would ban it.

 

[SSSnail]

Don't get me wrong, we develop on our apps for Vista and are trying hard to get everything working properly. It's just a pita, that's all; everytime they change something, we have to change. This to me is just funny, because it echoes the sentiment of a lot of folks around here, maybe it's the lack of cooperations, maybe it's the lack of love from Bill, or a combination of both. Vista as an OS is solid, no doubt.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I don't see why all the Vista fanboys get so worked up about this. Lots of businesses aren't going to touch Vista right now. Even Intel said they weren't going to use it before service pack one came out.

Because its the same old FUD we keep seeing,was the same with XP and it'll be the same down the road,if intel told you to jump off a cliff you would believe it and do it?


It's a known fact a lot of business and people resist change even when its for the better(and Vista is for the better).

5-6 years down the road we'll be having this same conversation with Microsoft's next OS.

 

[nerp]

The next time two planes crash in midair, we might someday be able to blame google!

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I don't see why all the Vista fanboys get so worked up about this. Lots of businesses aren't going to touch Vista right now. Even Intel said they weren't going to use it before service pack one came out.

Because its the same old FUD we keep seeing,was the same with XP and it'll be the same down the road,if intel told you to jump off a cliff you would believe it and do it?


It's a known fact a lot of business and people resist change even when its for the better(and Vista is for the better).

5-6 years down the road we'll be having this same conversation with Microsoft's next OS.

hehe see that's how FUD spreads. He mentioned that Intel thing as if it were fact and in the course of one thread it's now being accepted.

 

[Genx87]

I'd like to know if they allow XP, 2K or 9.x machines on their network.
Because if they do, yet ban Vista, I think they just pwned themselves for being nublet idiots.

 

[Nothinman]

I'd like to know if they allow XP, 2K or 9.x machines on their network.
Because if they do, yet ban Vista, I think they just pwned themselves for being nublet idiots.

No, because if they do all that means is that they've gone through the hoops of certifying them. Just because Win9X sucks doesn't mean it can't be secured to the point where their IT managers (or whoever has the authority required) can sign off and says "This is good enough, I acknowledge and take responsibilty for the security problems that we couldn't fix in order to use this software.".

 

[Tarrant64]

A few months into a new OS release isn't a green light for a lot of businesses to go ahead with an upgrade such as Windows XP to Vista. There are many I know that can still say they run some workstations and servers with Windows 2000 still.

For some, there is simply no reason to upgrade. When day to day work requires all systems are up and running there is often no cause for a major roll out of a new OS that has only officially been released for a few months.

Microsoft has a website with an official list of all compatible working software with Windows Vista, as well as ones that "just happen to work". This list barely covers the amount of software that's out there that many rely on. It is up to companies themselves to test the software and make sure it's compatible and when there are errors that they are able to correct them.

I'm not going to vouch and say that Windows Vista is the most secure Windows OS. I do however have the impression that it remains more secure than Windows XP, and better yet that it should be viewed as an extension of the hardened security that was built over time with Windows XP. The Vista OS was built from the ground up to be different than Vista improving on past mistakes and designs. However, just because it is new and highly promoted as more secured than ever doesnt' mean that the new design doesn't have any flaws.

Anything new does. Over time it is realized and patched, fixed, replaced, whatever.

For the comment about IT groups must suck if they can't support Vista on a large scale of users: You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[M00T]

I'll have to save this article for reference in 5 years when Microsoft releases yet another OS that none of the apps from the previous(Vista) will work on.

Long live proprietary cash cows.

 

[stash]

Originally posted by: M00T
I'll have to save this article for reference in 5 years when Microsoft releases yet another OS that none of the apps from the previous(Vista) will work on.

Long live proprietary cash cows.

Hyperbole much?

 

[M00T]

Sure, if it hadn't already happened numerous times.

 

[stash]

None of the apps that work on XP work with Vista?

BackCompat is one of the biggest reasons why Windows is a cash cow in the first place. Considerable engineering resources were expended to maintain a high level of backcompat in Vista.

Some, both inside and outside the company, feel that Microsoft should jettison the backcompat baggage completely, so your scenario might happen some day. But it's a major stretch to say that it has happened already.

 

[Skeeedunt]

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
I don't see why all the Vista fanboys get so worked up about this. Lots of businesses aren't going to touch Vista right now. Even Intel said they weren't going to use it before service pack one came out.

Isn't it all the anti-Vista fanboys getting worked up and posting these articles?

I haven't seen very many Vista fanboy threads complaining about how all businesses aren't switching to Vista right away and lol'ing at how crazy they are not to.

 

[BucNews]

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer

Originally posted by: FoBoT
what

I :heart: Vista

Try using it in a business environment and you wont. Pretty much the most unstable os since winME. I use it for testing purposes as my main machine at work just so i can get a feel for it and i am ready to pull my damn hair out it is so buggy

What bugs have you found?

My frustration stems from them not making an adminpak.msi for it and having to VPC and XP box just to manage my AD environment.

 

[BucNews]

Given the current level of competence shown in our government their ban on Vista might mark the OS as the most secure in the world.

 

[stash]

My frustration stems from them not making an adminpak.msi for it and having to VPC and XP box just to manage my AD environment.

The March compatibility update that hit Windows Update the other day appears to have corrected that, but I haven't verified for myself.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932246

 

[stash]

Just tried it, and it seems you still need to run the script here: http://support.microsoft.com/?id=930056

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Tarrant64
For the comment about IT groups must suck if they can't support Vista on a large scale of users: You have no idea what you're talking about.

You suck at reading. This isn't what I said at all.

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: RadiclDreamer
Try using it in a business environment and you wont. Pretty much the most unstable os since winME. I use it for testing purposes as my main machine at work just so i can get a feel for it and i am ready to pull my damn hair out it is so buggy

I call bullsh1t on you. We have a company of over 60,000 people and it's been running here for months on *almost every* desktop. My work box hasn't crashed once since it was setup in November. Maybe you and your IT dept just suck?

I'll stand by my REAL statement and I do know what I'm talking about.

If you think it's the most unstable OS since Windows ME then yeah, you and your IT department might just suck. Based on the rest of your post (I quoted you out of context) I think you probably agree.

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: Tarrant64
For the comment about IT groups must suck if they can't support Vista on a large scale of users: You have no idea what you're talking about.

You suck at reading. This isn't what I said at all.

I think he was referring to Genx87's comment, even though he didn't explicitly use the word suck