Microsoft to Stop Selling XP June 30, Should we use Vista?

[bloomlight]

Microsoft announced that June 30 is the cut-off date for selling Windows XP. Currently, all of our PCs are running Win XP pro over a LAN. If need to buy new PCs after June 30, Vista will be the only choice. How does Vista work with business network?

Also, we have a small group of users using remote access from their home computers. They may be forced to get Vista when buying new PCs. With majority of PCs running XP and some PCs using Vista on the same network, will this be a problem?

Thanks in advance.

 

[DTSMAN]

Vista is not reasonable. For no more than it does, it leaves too large of a footprint on the pc and uses up to many of the pc resources. Just to look pretty.
And yes it has networking issues in the buisness environment. As we discovered, you have to pay extra. There are 3 tiers to it and you have to purchase the one that does. And that is still a wrestling match.
I hope they force it so the IT community can start developing other opportunities.
It seems to me if someone would build a small OS that would setup NIC cards, have an internet browser, file structure, and support MS Office, they will have developed an OS that most business users need. I shouldn't have to waste 4gig of hard drive and 2gig of Ram just so the OS that manages my file structure will work.

Bo

Remember,
If the women don't find you handsome,
they should at least find you handy.
(Red Green)

http://www.redgreen.com

 

[cdogg]

sggaunt,
I was merely pointing out that everyone's notion of ME's "instability" and "value" depends on the perspective.

A lot of users that still had Windows 95 were often better off going to Windows 98 instead of ME. Why? Because their system usually didn't have enough horsepower to run ME properly. You can see that just by looking at the system requirements and recommendations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions#Hardware_requirements

Also, there was a good chance they had an app or two that relied on real-mode access to DOS - another thing that would crap out on the upgrade to ME. I worked in a computer retail store at the time ME was released. I remember seeing people that barely knew how to use their computer coming in to buy ME thinking it was must have. A lot of them were running Windows 98 too. From my perspective, that's where all the horror stories I heard of came from. On the flipside, very few people had issues with new computers that came with ME installed (and I worked with a major retailer that sold hundreds every month).

[tab]Features that mattered:
[ul][li]As far as USB support goes, it was also the only OS of the Win9x series that supported USB mass storage devices (Usbstor.sys):

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/connect/usb/usbfaq_intro.mspx

[/li]
[li]"System File Protection" which became known as WFP under 2000 and XP:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_File_Protection

[/li]
[li]Regarding ME's TCP/IP enhancements which were also found in Windows 2000:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/WinMe/maintain/netcomp.mspx?mfr=true

[/li][/ul]

[tab]
Sure, it wasn't a flagship OS by any means. In fact, XP came out just a year later. The real problem with ME is that it wasn't in the mainstream long and didn't need to be. That made it an easy target for criticism.

I'm just saying that in many situations, the problem was with the end user or underpowered hardware. Regardless of personal experience, ME still deserves to be treated fairly with all the exceptions that exist to a lot of the flak it received over the years.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[strongm]

>What I meant was that W98 never got to be stable (In my opinion)

W98 was great, particularly W98SE which was the best of the W9x operating systems that MS produced.

>Many accounts packages hung onto DOS for a long time because of a mistrust of Windows stability

Well, many of them hung on to DOS because they didn't want to have to do a complete, ground-up rewrite unless they absolutely had to (and there are good reasons for that in an accounting package).

>All the horror stories we have implanted in our heads are from "home" users

Given it was targetted at Home Users, you can hardly use the fact that Home Users had problems with it as a defence against criticism.

It is consistently and regularly voted the worst OS that Microsoft have ever produced (and in some cases, the worst product that Microsoft have ever produced, which is saying something). I remember reading quotes from Microsoft executives some years ago who went on record admitting that Me was a poor product, but sadly I can't seem to find any relevant documents to support my memory.

 

[cdogg]

It is consistently and regularly voted the worst OS that Microsoft have ever produced

Well that's an easy one to agree with. I obviously couldn't vote that it was better than 3.1, NT 4, 95, 98, 2000, XP, or Vista!

[tab]

W98 was great, particularly W98SE

I was a huge fan myself, but in all honesty if 98 was so great, why did it need a "second edition" to be sold as a standalone instead of supplied as an update?

You have to ponder that one!

[tab]

Given it was targetted at Home Users, you can hardly use the fact that Home Users had problems

You didn't finish my sentence, man! I said "from home users [navy]buying it at the store and attempting to upgrade on their own[/navy]". I wasn't referring to ALL home users, especially those that knew what they were doing or those that bought a new PC with ME preinstalled.

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[cdogg]

Obviously, this thread hijacking has taken things off-course, but there's nothing wrong with having a general discussion!

In closing on the ME topic, I just want to say that strongm's comments about the opinions of MS execs and those who apparently "voted" actually support my argument in a roundabout way. It's not what you hear that matters. It's what you experienced first-hand that counts. All I'm saying is that in many bad experiences I've seen or heard of, there were other factors involved besides the OS that made it that way. We act like kids sometimes who have a tendency to make others' bad experiences our own. Before you know it, the flak becomes mistaken for fact.


My final 2¢ on the matter...you can stop hatin' now!

~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.

 

[strongm]

>You have to ponder that one!

Not really. Money is the answer. Mixcrosoft spotted that they could charge for what could in theory have been a patch upgrade (but you have to remember that at the time big patches were difficult to release via downloads because we all had slow links), a policy that Apple, for example, are happy to mimic as they charge for every point upgrade to OS X ...

 

[acewarlock]

I liked Win98Se and I though it was very stable on my PC and I only switched to XP PRO 2 years ago once it became stable and I'm not planning on ever using Vista.




This is a Signature and not part of the answer, it appears on every reply.

This is an Analogy so don't take it personally as some have.

Why change the engine if all you need is to change the spark plugs.

 

[eyec]

yet another extension

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7795302.stm

 

[sggaunt]

Note the refence to Windows 7, this isnt going to be anymore 'XP like' than Vista is, so we need to get used to the idea!


Steve: N.M.N.F.
If something is popular, it must be wrong: Mark Twain