Vista Migration Scaring Off IT Pros

[Mr. Vista]

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2219153,00.asp

By Deborah Perelman
November 19, 2007

When weighing the difficulties involved in a Vista upgrade, techies fail to
see its value.

Now more than a year out of the business gate, Microsoft's Vista operating
system is having trouble making friends in the exact place it needs them the
most-the IT department.

When asked, rather than express excitement over Vista's promised better
security, networking features and fancy GUI, IT professionals admit
trepidation over the looming upgrade and the trouble it will cause.

"Personally, I'm dreading the amount of time it'll take to upgrade each
machine from a hardware standpoint-adding memory or whatever-and from an
operating system upgrade. It's just time consuming," Howard Graylin, a
senior technical analyst in Ridgeland, Miss., told eWEEK.

But technology professionals worry about more than the time it will take to
actually migrate, but the inevitable difficulties resulting from an, at
times, painfully slow user learning curve.

"I also dread the 'why doesn't it work like this anymore?' questions we'll
get from users. My standard answer is, 'I don't know. Let me ask Bill
[Gates] the next time we have lunch and I'll get back to you.' Well, the
second sentence is said silently," jokes Graylin. "I need to keep my job."

Graylin's fears are echoed in a study to be released Nov. 19 in which 90
percent of IT professionals reported that they had concerns about migrating
to Vista.

"One thing that we've heard a lot is that there is a big training impact.
The shift from Windows 98 to 2000 and then to XP were smoother because the
interfaces were more similar," Rob Meinhardt, CEO of KACE, a provider of
systems management appliances which commissioned King Research to perform
the study.

The study also underscored how little enterprise market penetration Vista
had so far: 48 percent of respondents said that they had not deployed Vista
in any way and 39 percent had only done so on a few test machines. Less than
1 percent of respondents had fully migrated their organizations over to
Vista-the majority of these respondents were from very small companies.

I think that IT management is uncertain about what issues might arise from
running Vista, from training costs to consider to making sure applications
are compatible before moving them over. It's a big testing challenge," said
Meinhardt.

IT departments are also put off by the costs associated with Vista's
performance load and memory requirements, and for many, it is enough to keep
them from upgrading altogether, or at least putting it off for another year.

"My company was scheduled to migrate to Vista by the end of '07, but that
was before we realized we'd have to upgrade or replace 95 percent of our
existing hardware. That's a huge expense especially when you consider that
XP is a stable platform. We've pushed the target date out until the end of
'08, but I'm not entirely sure we'll upgrade before then," said Graylin.

Though 44 percent of respondents in the King Research study said they have
considered deploying non-Windows operating systems to avoid the Vista
migration, the vast majority see a Vista migration as inevitable. Still,
most will be waiting until after the scheduled January 2008 Vista SP1
release.

"Most people don't want to be early adopters. There are going to be bugs,
and it takes a certain amount of time for any new release to stabilize,"
said Meinhardt.

Nevertheless, "there is no question that IT is dreading this process. It's
one thing when a system is clearly adding value, but it's not clear yet. IT
would rather be working on projects that have a bigger impact on their
businesses."

 

[Mr. Arnold]

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2219153,00.asp

<snipped>

I work in IT, and it's going to be the same thing that happened with IT when
they came from Windows DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.x to Win 9'x, Win 9'x to Win
NT 4.0, NT 4.0 to Win 2K, Win 2k to Win XP and now it's Vista. They are
going to go kicking and screaming, but the are going to go Vista.

I contracted in a company recently that's using XP pro for its workstations.
They hired a new VP of IT that likes Vista and told them to install Vista on
his computer. You think they are not going to Vista company wide at some
point?

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

An example of the writers bias:
"we'd have to upgrade or replace 95 percent of our existing hardware"
That is an extremely high % and far from typical.
Like many organizations, perhaps they run hardware as long as possible
making this hardware extremely old.
They may also have proprietary hardware and if so, there will probably
be problems whenever any operating system is changed, not just windows
Vista.
However the facts conveniently missing from the article probably tell
more than the meager information supplied.
Or maybe the IT department is incompetent and skews the facts to keep
their job easier with no change.

That is very similar to what was said 6 years ago at the release of
Windows XP as well as operating systems before that.
Like many articles, you can get it to sound however you want by cherry
picking the facts that support your views.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2219153,00.asp

By Deborah Perelman
November 19, 2007

When weighing the difficulties involved in a Vista upgrade, techies
fail to see its value.

Now more than a year out of the business gate, Microsoft's Vista
operating system is having trouble making friends in the exact place
it needs them the most-the IT department.

When asked, rather than express excitement over Vista's promised
better security, networking features and fancy GUI, IT professionals
admit trepidation over the looming upgrade and the trouble it will
cause.

"Personally, I'm dreading the amount of time it'll take to upgrade
each machine from a hardware standpoint-adding memory or
whatever-and from an operating system upgrade. It's just time
consuming," Howard Graylin, a senior technical analyst in Ridgeland,
Miss., told eWEEK.

But technology professionals worry about more than the time it will
take to actually migrate, but the inevitable difficulties resulting
from an, at times, painfully slow user learning curve.

"I also dread the 'why doesn't it work like this anymore?' questions
we'll get from users. My standard answer is, 'I don't know. Let me
ask Bill [Gates] the next time we have lunch and I'll get back to
you.' Well, the second sentence is said silently," jokes Graylin. "I
need to keep my job."

Graylin's fears are echoed in a study to be released Nov. 19 in
which 90 percent of IT professionals reported that they had concerns
about migrating to Vista.

"One thing that we've heard a lot is that there is a big training
impact. The shift from Windows 98 to 2000 and then to XP were
smoother because the interfaces were more similar," Rob Meinhardt,
CEO of KACE, a provider of systems management appliances which
commissioned King Research to perform the study.

The study also underscored how little enterprise market penetration
Vista had so far: 48 percent of respondents said that they had not
deployed Vista in any way and 39 percent had only done so on a few
test machines. Less than 1 percent of respondents had fully migrated
their organizations over to Vista-the majority of these respondents
were from very small companies.

I think that IT management is uncertain about what issues might
arise from running Vista, from training costs to consider to making
sure applications are compatible before moving them over. It's a big
testing challenge," said Meinhardt.

IT departments are also put off by the costs associated with Vista's
performance load and memory requirements, and for many, it is enough
to keep them from upgrading altogether, or at least putting it off
for another year.

"My company was scheduled to migrate to Vista by the end of '07, but
that was before we realized we'd have to upgrade or replace 95
percent of our existing hardware. That's a huge expense especially
when you consider that XP is a stable platform. We've pushed the
target date out until the end of '08, but I'm not entirely sure
we'll upgrade before then," said Graylin.

Though 44 percent of respondents in the King Research study said
they have considered deploying non-Windows operating systems to
avoid the Vista migration, the vast majority see a Vista migration
as inevitable. Still, most will be waiting until after the scheduled
January 2008 Vista SP1 release.

"Most people don't want to be early adopters. There are going to be
bugs, and it takes a certain amount of time for any new release to
stabilize," said Meinhardt.

Nevertheless, "there is no question that IT is dreading this
process. It's one thing when a system is clearly adding value, but
it's not clear yet. IT would rather be working on projects that have
a bigger impact on their businesses."

 

[mayayana]

An example of the writers bias:

"we'd have to upgrade or replace 95 percent of our existing hardware"
That is an extremely high % and far from typical ....
Like many articles, you can get it to sound however you want by cherry
picking the facts that support your views.

Interesting that you so often demand to have
the documenting links that support a point, yet in
this case you're happy to just rebut the hearsay
article. EWeek's article was, as you noted, half-assed.
They didn't even bother to link to their sources.

But I'm sure that, rigorous intellectual that you are,
you really want to understand the whole issue fully.
So here are the articles that actually quote the studies -

----------------------
"Ninety percent of 961 IT professionals surveyed said they
have concerns about migrating to Vista and more than
half said they have no plans to deploy Vista."

http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/infrastructure/applications/news/i
ndex.cfm?newsid=6258

http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/infrastructure/applications/news/i
ndex.cfm?newsid=6234
--------------------

Though frankly, I'm not sure what to make of the
actual studies myself. I don't have any reason to
assume that Forrester has their act together and
can't be bought. "Studies" seem to increasingly be
just a form of advertising for all parties involved.
On the other hand, without them we'd have nothing
to go on but Microsoft's wildly skewed propaganda.

 

[Mr. Arnold]

Interesting that you so often demand to have
the documenting links that support a point, yet in
this case you're happy to just rebut the hearsay
article. EWeek's article was, as you noted, half-assed.
They didn't even bother to link to their sources.

But I'm sure that, rigorous intellectual that you are,
you really want to understand the whole issue fully.
So here are the articles that actually quote the studies -

----------------------
"Ninety percent of 961 IT professionals surveyed said they
have concerns about migrating to Vista and more than
half said they have no plans to deploy Vista."

http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/infrastructure/applications/news/i
ndex.cfm?newsid=6258

http://www.computerworlduk.com/management/infrastructure/applications/news/i
ndex.cfm?newsid=6234
--------------------

Though frankly, I'm not sure what to make of the
actual studies myself. I don't have any reason to
assume that Forrester has their act together and
can't be bought. "Studies" seem to increasingly be
just a form of advertising for all parties involved.
On the other hand, without them we'd have nothing
to go on but Microsoft's wildly skewed propaganda.

What you have is other IT professionals that know the deal. And what is
being talked about now and what one will not do won't hold true a year
from now, when it comes to moving to a new O/S or platform. What's happening
now and what will happen a year from now or in the future are two different
things.

I don't even have to read the links you have posted, because of the words
*we don't have any plans* and *we are concerned*. Yeah right and the cow
jumped over the Moon too. IT is always concerned when something new is
coming into play, but it quickly fades and I mean quickly. What IT means is
*we don't have any plans at this time*. We're going to wait a little bit
until things are ironed out and settled down, and then we'll be on board,
just like they have done in the past.

I have seen this a lot over the years in IT come into play time and time
again about what someone will say he or she won't do concerning this. Only
for them to turn around and do it when the time is right.

It is the same song and dance that's been going on since the mid 1990(s)
with the MS O/S platforms. IT was saying back in 1999 or 2000 that IT
wouldn't go to .NET either.

What's happening now is that IT is all over the top of .NET slobbering all
over the place to get .Net solutions implemented on the MS platform. IT has
done this all the way from VB 3, 4, 5, VS 6, VS 2000, 2003, 2005 and soon
to be out VS 2008. IT and companies have to keep pace with new technology
to be viable.

 

[xfile]

I don't have any reason to

assume that Forrester has their act together and
can't be bought.

True but less likely. Their self-interest is to make reports as creditable
and reputable as possible so companies and executives will pay top dollars
for it. They don't rely on a vendor's products nor skills for making a
living.

 

[xfile]

I should have also added, reputable research firms don't take ads.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Statistics can very often be manipulated to mean whatever suits a
specific agenda.
Giving %s without any supporting documentation leaves credibility wide
open.
The total number people surveyed, what organizations are represented.
how many computers represented and more are needed before someone can
come to any viable conclusion.
Leaving off some of those details or simply not collecting them leaves
more room to doubt the credibility.

961 is a relatively small number and may not be sufficient to be
representative of the group especially without more details of them,
their computers and organizations.

Anyone should "have concerns about migrating" to another operating
system.
Among those concerns is support for essential hardware and software.
But concerns do not necessarily translate to problems.
It is simply prudent to verify a new product meets your needs before
changing.
This applies to any type of product, not just computers and operating
systems.

 

[xfile]

The total number people surveyed, what organizations are represented. how

many computers represented and more are needed before someone can come to
any viable conclusion.
Leaving off some of those details or simply not collecting them leaves
more room to doubt the credibility.

Hi,

Not speaking for eWeek, but the above information are and will be included
in each and every report from Forrester, Gartner, and so on.

Press, such as eWeek, can only cite part of results and cannot print the
entire report. I think that it is unwise to question reports from those
firms. If one wishes to read it, certainly can buy it for a single copy or
on subscriptions base.

And as far as for sampling, quantity has nothing to do with quality. Gallop
has been very accurate on predicting US presidential elections with very
small samples, just for example. And you often pointed out, using this
newsgroup is not a good sample for the overall user experience, which I
totally agree. Why you said that? I guess because sample quality isn't
representative despite the number of visitors?

However, it should be noted that each and every research could go wrong and
that falls to the random errors. More importantly is that each is based on
certain conditions and when conditions changed, results will also change.

People oftentimes will focus on those conditions and try to change so the
results would become more favorable, instead of questioning the integrity
and creditability of those results. After all, their reputations and
revenues are not based on free blogs and ads, and whether one likes it or
not, they are highly respected by senior executives including those in MS.

 

[the wharf rat]

<snipped>

I work in IT, and it's going to be the same thing that happened with IT when
they came from Windows DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.x to Win 9'x, Win 9'x to Win
NT 4.0, NT 4.0 to Win 2K, Win 2k to Win XP and now it's Vista. They are
going to go kicking and screaming, but the are going to go Vista.

Windows 3.11 to 95 was utterly painless. I needed few if any hardware
changes and got very few help desk calls because of it. Likewise 95 to
98 went smoothly. I had more problems moving people to 2000 because it
was more like NT than it was like 95/98 and needed more hardware. (Very
few desktop users ran NT.) We didn't upgrade to XP but simply run both
platforms side by side to this day (in fact we have Apple users and one guy
using... OS/2! Yes, really.)

The big problem with moving to Vista is that because of that
misconstructed DRM crap it really does require large hardware upgrades
and lots of things don't work on it. Eventually I'll have to start because
of the MS monopoly on the desktop, but here's an example of why I dread it
more than I dreaded rewriting VAX Basic programs in Cobol.

One of the managers told his administrative assistant to download
and install the Office 2007 trial. It was so very different than the 2003
she was used to that she couldn't work, and it took me 2 hours to get the
machine back the way it was. I'm imagining that * 10,000...only there's
no going back...

 

[the wharf rat]

And as far as for sampling, quantity has nothing to do with quality. Gallop
has been very accurate on predicting US presidential elections with very
small samples, just for example. And you often pointed out, using this

The size of a sample needed to make accurate predictions about
a population is suprisingly small, especially if you ask yes or no
questions. You can look up the formula; a couple of hundred is enough to
make 99.5% accurate predictions on an almost infinitely large population.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

A lot depends on where those "couple of hundred" come from and how
they are selected.
However I doubt that small a number can have any reliability with a
large group such as windows users.
The various areas to get the samples can easily be more than that.
And if to few are selected, some groups, by necessity, will be
overlooked.
As has already been suggested, looking only in newsgroups will not
give reliable numbers regardless how many are polled.

Where is the formula you refer that documents only a few hundred are
needed for reliable statistics?

 

[Mr. Arnold]

Windows 3.11 to 95 was utterly painless. I needed few if any hardware
changes and got very few help desk calls because of it. Likewise 95 to
98 went smoothly. I had more problems moving people to 2000 because it
was more like NT than it was like 95/98 and needed more hardware.

Win 2k is a NT classed O/S, like XP, Win 2K3, and Vista are nT classed
O/S(s).


(Very

few desktop users ran NT.) We didn't upgrade to XP but simply run both
platforms side by side to this day (in fact we have Apple users and one
guy
using... OS/2! Yes, really.)

I worked in shops where the conversions were straight from machines running
Windows DOS 622/3.1 and Win 9'x to Win 2K, and it was painless. And it also
became painless for the IT programming staff as things became a lot more
stable as the compnay moved to NT classed O/S computers. Of course, IT
dumped all the machines that were running the old O/S for ones that could
run Win 2k -- a capital expenditure, Cost to Operate, tax write off and
Return on Investment. The same thing happened when companies dumped Win 2K
pro and went to XP Pro, and they went out an go new computers to run XP
Pro -- a capital expenditure, Cost to Operate, tax write off and Return on
Investment

The big problem with moving to Vista is that because of that
misconstructed DRM crap it really does require large hardware upgrades
and lots of things don't work on it. Eventually I'll have to start
because
of the MS monopoly on the desktop, but here's an example of why I dread it
more than I dreaded rewriting VAX Basic programs in Cobol.

I disagree with you, because I have been doing some interviews for .Net
contracts where I was told that the companies were or have started moving
to Vista. Where the programming development department moves to in a company
with new technology, the rest of the company follows. It's the programming
department and the developers that set the pace.

One of the managers told his administrative assistant to download
and install the Office 2007 trial. It was so very different than the 2003
she was used to that she couldn't work, and it took me 2 hours to get the
machine back the way it was. I'm imagining that * 10,000...only there's
no going back...

Do you think that the only thing a company does is work with Office Products
with its employee's to do day to day business internally and external for
the company? Do you think a company is or is not going to Vista in the long
run, because what is happening with DRM? If some employee is watching videos
in some company, there is a problem, because he or she is not doing their
job, and he or she needs to be terminated.

I have been in the IT field since 1971 and still going strong now, with
developing .Net solutions at this time.

Vista is more geared to running .Net solutions than any previous versions of
the NT classed O/S(s) such as Web Intranet/Internet, Windows Desktop,
Console and NT Service applications, which all of it that's .NET solutions
are being used more and more in the business/corproat sectors, where that
kind of horse power is needed to do business, Vista is going to be the
platform of choice, like it was for Win 2K pro, XP pro and now the Vista
business O/S solutions.

You may want to try to kid yourself about this along with some others. But
it's not going to hold in long run in what's happening in the
business/corporate world. And it's going to be business as usual with MS in
the business/corporate sector. I have heard it all before. I'll repeat it. I
have heard it all before, and it's going to be business as usual in the long
run. It's just going to another capital expenditure, Cost to Operate, tax
write off and Return on Investment.

Don't kid yourself.

 

[the wharf rat]

I worked in shops where the conversions were straight from machines running
Windows DOS 622/3.1 and Win 9'x to Win 2K, and it was painless. And it also

Well, not that I doubt your experience but that's either a
miracle of IT management or just plain luck. Going from DOS to
Win 3.11 wasn't easy: remember hand-jobbing all those NDIS files? Bah

run Win 2k -- a capital expenditure, Cost to Operate, tax write off and
Return on Investment.

It's that last bit that's a hard sell to the CFO. Exactly
what does Vista buy me that helps me justify that kind of line item?

I disagree with you, because I have been doing some interviews for .Net
contracts where I was told that the companies were or have started moving
to Vista. Where the programming development department moves to in a company
with new technology, the rest of the company follows. It's the programming
department and the developers that set the pace.

You disagree that all that DRM crap is what requires the extra
hardware and is what's responsible for some of the most glaring problems
with this new OS? Because you've been doing interviews? I'm sorry,
but I don't understand that.

Anyway, while we let developers have a large degree of freedom
in the end they need to make sure it runs on the platforms our clients

Do you think that the only thing a company does is work with Office Products
with its employee's to do day to day business internally and external for
the company?

That's a straw man argument.

Do you think a company is or is not going to Vista in the long
run, because what is happening with DRM?

I think it will slow things down a great deal. Let's go back to
the first paragraph. If I could go to the CFO and say we need a large
CapEx but we'll be buying vastly improved security, huge leaps in
functionality, and lower TCO I might actually get the budget. But that's
a lie in this case. That new hardware is only needed because Microsoft
decided to kiss Hollywood's ass and incidentally get total control over
all that "premium" content. If I go to the CFO and tell her that I need
all that money so that Hollywood producers can have veto power over board-
level designs and so that Capricorn Records can be sure that every last
byte on that bus is encrypted to keep its music safe and profitable she'll
probably tell me about Linux as soon as she stops laughing.

If some employee is watching videos

in some company, there is a problem, because he or she is not doing their
job, and he or she needs to be terminated.

"Do not muzzle the kine that treadeth out the grain." These
people aren't paid by the hour. Anyway, DRM doesn't stop people from
watching movies. It just stops people from watching them on devices
whose vendors haven't ensured that I can't copy the damned thing by snooping
the board traces.

I have been in the IT field since 1971 and still going strong now, with
developing .Net solutions at this time.

.Net is a very good but very platform limited API. Deliberately
limiting one's self to a single platform is bad strategy because it leaves
you unable to take advantage of new developments. For instance, Solaris
10 absolutely rocks on X86 servers. Windows has nothing like ZFS or
lightweight virtual machines.

 

[the wharf rat]

A lot depends on where those "couple of hundred" come from and how
they are selected.

You only need to ensure that they're a true random sample
or that you can compensate for the ways in which they're not.

However I doubt that small a number can have any reliability with a
large group such as windows users.

Well, no, I mean, that's what statistics is about. It's not
voodoo. It's solid mathematics. Pretty advanced stuff, too, the
proofs are way over my head but I'm willing to accept them as valid.

As has already been suggested, looking only in newsgroups will not
give reliable numbers regardless how many are polled.

Yes. That's why the people doing the studies aren't asking
only on Usenet.

Where is the formula you refer that documents only a few hundred are
needed for reliable statistics?

Here's a good explanation of sample size calculations:

http://www.isixsigma.com/library/content/c000709a.asp

And look, it's in Microsoft

 

[Mr. Arnold]

Well, not that I doubt your experience but that's either a
miracle of IT management or just plain luck. Going from DOS to
Win 3.11 wasn't easy: remember hand-jobbing all those NDIS files? Bah

When a company goes out an get's consultants, hires staff that knows what
they are doing with conversions, then what makes you think it such a mystery
and luck?

It's called the company pays for your expertise, so you had better known
what you're doing. I even got a bonus for the successful conversion, as I
stayed there 24 hours for two or three days as the company converted, and
was back up and running the first day after the holiday without any major
problems.

And a course there were some small glitches, but that is what the Model
Office is about testing applications in the environment that is currently or
is going to be used before it happens.

It's that last bit that's a hard sell to the CFO. Exactly
what does Vista buy me that helps me justify that kind of line item?

It's not the CFO that needs to be convinced, it's the CIO, VP of IT and
managers that need to be on board. The CFO is just along for the ride.

You disagree that all that DRM crap is what requires the extra
hardware and is what's responsible for some of the most glaring problems
with this new OS? Because you've been doing interviews? I'm sorry,
but I don't understand that.

DRM has nothing to do with business needs is the bottom line. And I am
telling you that DRM is NOT the determining factor as to werther or not a
compnay moves to a new platform.

Anyway, while we let developers have a large degree of freedom
in the end they need to make sure it runs on the platforms our clients
use, which don't include Vista yet <whew>

Well it's changing and the developers in the company do set the pace.
Because if were not for the developers making the demands to move forward
and the end-user base in some cases, it would just be keep the status quo. I
have worked with the help desk, tech support, network and admins etc etc and
know the mindset. They won't get off of their a$$ and do anything and if
it's not broke then don't fix it. In the meantime the end-user base has no
respect for IT in a whole lot of cases, because IT's inability to move
forward, by some.

That's a straw man argument.

Well counter it with something other than what you're talking about, because
I don't see anything here coming from you.

I think it will slow things down a great deal. Let's go back to
the first paragraph. If I could go to the CFO and say we need a large
CapEx but we'll be buying vastly improved security, huge leaps in
functionality, and lower TCO I might actually get the budget. But that's
a lie in this case.

You're just one person only looking at one aspect of the equation. You
cannot account for all needs of a company, the end user base or not even the
IT department.

That new hardware is only needed because Microsoft
decided to kiss Hollywood's ass and incidentally get total control over
all that "premium" content. If I go to the CFO and tell her that I need
all that money so that Hollywood producers can have veto power over board-
level designs and so that Capricorn Records can be sure that every last
byte on that bus is encrypted to keep its music safe and profitable she'll
probably tell me about Linux as soon as she stops laughing.

LOL, what does Hollywood have to do with the day to day needs of a company
doing it's business transactions or meeting its business needs?

No one is using DVD's for business needs in the corporate/business
environment for the most part, and from a programmer's stand point, the more
CPU power you can give me, the better things will be. And as far as more
secure applications being developed using Vista, it's far better than any
previous version of the NT based O/S.

If some employee is watching videos

"Do not muzzle the kine that treadeth out the grain." These
people aren't paid by the hour. Anyway, DRM doesn't stop people from
watching movies. It just stops people from watching them on devices
whose vendors haven't ensured that I can't copy the damned thing by
snooping
the board traces.

And I am going to say that I don't care about this, as you're stuck on DRM.

I do get paid by the hour along with a whole lot of others. What does DRM
have to do with corporate/business needs? What does DRM have do to with a
financial application running on a desktop or other in-house applications
that are running on the company's computer desktop for its work force, as an
example?

.Net is a very good but very platform limited API. Deliberately
limiting one's self to a single platform is bad strategy because it leaves
you unable to take advantage of new developments. For instance, Solaris
10 absolutely rocks on X86 servers. Windows has nothing like ZFS or
lightweight virtual machines.

And nothing can match the power of .NET. Any of this stuff you are talking
about putting one time in your pockets, because that what is really all
about, which is having food on the table and money in the pockets. Show me
some job postings about anything you're talking about in abundance. You have
no clue about .NET, so please don't even go there.

 

[DanS]

I don't even have to read the links you have posted, because of the
words
*we don't have any plans* and *we are concerned*.

Well let's see, I'll quote them here for you......

'Ninety percent of 961 IT professionals surveyed said they have concerns
about migrating to Vista and more than half said they have no plans to
deploy Vista.

"The concerns about Vista specified by participants were overwhelmingly
related to stability. Stability in general was frequently cited, as well
as compatibility with the business software that would need to run on
Vista," said Diane Hagglund of King Research, which conducted the survey
for systems management vendor Kace. "Cost was also cited as a concern by
some respondents."

The survey, echoing one from Forrester last week, shows most IT
professionals are worried about Vista and that 44% have considered non-
Windows operating systems, such as Linux and Macintosh, to avoid the
Microsoft migration.'

......... so this survey echoes the one from Forrester last week !?!?!?!?

WAIT !!!!!!! THREE WEEKS AGO IN A SURVEY (FUNDED BY MICROSOFT ?),
FORRESTER CONCLUDED THAT BUSSINESSS WOULD START UPDATING TO VISTA IN
DROVES BY MID-2008.

So which one is it ?

I'll bet if you get Linux users worldwide to each donate $1, they can
commission a study by Forrester that will say that Linux IS the future
and more people are moving to Linux than upgrading to Vista and that MS
will vanish within 10 years.

 

[mayayana]

........ so this survey echoes the one from Forrester last week !?!?!?!?

WAIT !!!!!!! THREE WEEKS AGO IN A SURVEY (FUNDED BY MICROSOFT ?),
FORRESTER CONCLUDED THAT BUSSINESSS WOULD START UPDATING TO VISTA IN
DROVES BY MID-2008.

Really? I didn't know about that. I'd love to read a
book that just details the connections that happened
behind the scenes of well-known studies. Microsoft
is brazen to the point of ludicrous in their bending
of the facts (Last time I saw Bill Gates speak he was
complaining on TV (Charlie Rose, I think) that people
unfaoirly thought Vista was more expensive than XP),
but I don't think they're at all unique - in the tech. field
or outside. Press releases and trumped-up studies are
what pass for news these days.

 

[Mr. Arnold]

Well let's see, I'll quote them here for you......

'Ninety percent of 961 IT professionals surveyed said they have concerns
about migrating to Vista and more than half said they have no plans to
deploy Vista.

They said it in the past. All it means that they don't have any plans at
this time that's all it means. They are waiting a couple of years, just like
they waited a couple of years before the vast majority moved from Win 2K to
XP Pro or Win 2K server to Win 2k3 server. They are goin g to do the same
thing with Vista and Win 2k8 server.

"The concerns about Vista specified by participants were overwhelmingly
related to stability. Stability in general was frequently cited, as well
as compatibility with the business software that would need to run on
Vista," said Diane Hagglund of King Research, which conducted the survey
for systems management vendor Kace. "Cost was also cited as a concern by
some respondents."

Talk is cheap. They said the same thing about Win 2K. They said the same
thing about Win XP. They said the same thing with Win 2k3 server. Hell they
even said companies wouldn't move to the client server platform totally 20
years ago. They also said the the big iron horse mainframes would be a thing
of the past 20 years ago, and they are still here pushing those transactions
and have not gone any where.

The survey, echoing one from Forrester last week, shows most IT
professionals are worried about Vista and that 44% have considered non-
Windows operating systems, such as Linux and Macintosh, to avoid the
Microsoft migration.'

I got Linux too. There is nothing wrong with Linux. Linux is just another
O/S. Business is business and IT doesn't jump ship at the drop of a hat. And
what? Do you think companies are going to start just migrating over to Linux
when their entire IT work force is comprised of a MS trained staff and a MS
end user base?

What kind of business management is that? Yes, you have a minority that can
afford to make such a move, but the vast vast majority of companies don't
have that kind of money to burn -- not in today's business environment. And
if one thinks that such a migration doesn't cost big money to make such a
migration, he or she is just kidding and don't know what it takes.

........ so this survey echoes the one from Forrester last week !?!?!?!?

WAIT !!!!!!! THREE WEEKS AGO IN A SURVEY (FUNDED BY MICROSOFT ?),
FORRESTER CONCLUDED THAT BUSSINESSS WOULD START UPDATING TO VISTA IN
DROVES BY MID-2008.

So which one is it ?

And because of Win 2K3 server, IIS 6, and .NET, MS continues to walk down
Linux and Apache in the Web server platform dominance.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2007/10/11/october_2007_web_server_survey.html

I'll bet if you get Linux users worldwide to each donate $1, they can
commission a study by Forrester that will say that Linux IS the future
and more people are moving to Linux than upgrading to Vista and that MS
will vanish within 10 years.

Most likely, they are just keeping the status quo for right now. Man, MS had
the same problem with Win 2k pro and XP when they were released. There was
suppose to be XP servers. What happened to that? I'll tell you what
happened. They became Win 2k3 servers . It's the same old song and dance
that's been going on for the last 20 years or so.

I see some movement to use Linux and some for Apple, but it's never going to
out pace MS. It's not happening in the business sector or in the home user
sector that MS is going to be out paced knocked out the box -- not in my
lifetime, your lifetime or anyone else's lifetime.

You need some new, different and drastic technology change to emerge that's
going to over take MS and knock MS off the box other than what is happening
now with Information Technology with a new player as the leader. Where is
the technological change?

I am talking horse and buggy technology to the car, propeller driven air
planes to jets, boats with wind propulsion to to the boat propulsion power
used today, IBM missing boat on the personal computer usage and things of
that nature -- that kind of technical change. Where is it? Information
Technology really has not changed that much in 30 some years. I am doing the
same stuff technology wise with computers I was doing back in the 1970's.

 

[xfile]

WAIT !!!!!!! THREE WEEKS AGO IN A SURVEY (FUNDED BY MICROSOFT ?),

FORRESTER CONCLUDED THAT BUSSINESSS WOULD START UPDATING TO VISTA IN
DROVES BY MID-2008.

Hi,

I would be interested to know this one as well and see the difference. Do
you have any pointer for the title of the research so I could go further
from there?

Thanks in advance.