Windows Vista is not for Intel, it has been claimed. The chip giant will not be installing the new operating systems on its many thousands of desktop PCs. It has "no compelling case" to do so. So claims an insider cited by the New York Times yesterday. A company spokesman admitted the OS was not being rolled out across the …
@Lager and Crisps
Great name by the way.
I read on one of the pages of Microsoft's sprawling web property a while back that allegedly Microsoft's IT department (yup they have one, with a BOFH too no doubt) deploys the products internally before they are released and provides feedback to the development teams.
SO, this begs the question of how much load was placed on the OS when it was tested internally and what hardware was it run on?
I assuming that an MS staffer in an appropriate position can simply whip out a Green/Gold/Black Ameican Express card and get any hardware they desire even if it isn't released yet.
Or more likely, hardware vendors are falling over themselves to give hardware to MS to test for free so that they can stick the certified sticker on it.
Bill G with a halo because he's spending his gigantic pile of cash on worthwhile stuff, good on him
(did think about a Hilton gag related to hardware and above mentioned card but I'll leave that to your imagination)
RE: Switched Recent;y
Also forgot to mention that a fair number of my colleagues have successfully tried Windows Server 2008 as a desktop OS and have found it to run much quicker (even with Aero installed) than Vista.
I recently switched to Vista x64 Enterprise (courtesy of work) from XP Pro, my primary driver was the additional RAM I could use for VMware, I now have 8GB and it's all hunky dory. There was no way I was going to try the mess that is XP x64.
However, I do like to play the occasional game and a lot of my old titles simply won't work (the Rockstar and id packs from Steam comes to mind) and I've had other little issues, like span mode on my nvidia 7950GX2 ceasing to work and my X-FI sound card giving me shit when trying to use VoIP.
I find on the whole though that it's a nice upgrade from XP, the new driver and security model is finally a step in the right direction and the networking center is great.
But saying that, I didn't have to pay for it and considering that Vista Ultimate is nearly 300 quid retail (the OEM one is tied to the mobo, which I change quite frequently), I'm not sure I'd have upgraded if it was on my own tab.
"gamers don't buy their operating systems"
Please don't talk bollocks. I'm typing this on a machine with a fully legit copy of XP Pro, which is used mainly for gaming. Most serious PC gamers build their own high spec machines, which are not cheap. These are the kind of people who can afford (and thus do pay for) the OS. It's actually one of the cheaper components of the build.
The reason I don't want Vista is simple - I don't need it. The only game I have which can use DX10 is Crysis, and having seen it running under DX10, I can't see enough of a difference to make it worth buying a new OS for (especially not at the ridiculously inflated price of Vista in the UK).
To the subject of the article :
My (very large) employers use XP. They have no intention of upgrading to Vista unless there is a damn good business benefit to it. There isn't, so they'll probably keep XP for a very long time indeed.
Re: Intel and upgrades
They were using/installing in 2004.........
@ Chris Matchett
I was recently required to use a client's system with Fista on it. It was a beefy machine with 4GB and no slacker. But Fista made it a slug.
I installed VMWare and used an XP Pro VM instance within it. My development environment and database worked fine. My network and FTP performance was superior inside the VMWare XP instance, compared to the same data transfer within Fista (on which the VM was running ... odd...).
In some cases, the Remote Desktop connections that were unstable and unworkable within Fista were rock-solid and highly responsive within the XP instance inside the VM running on Fista. Everything worked fine in my VMWare instances. I actually had more than one VM running at any given time and was fine.
Try that. I have also used VPC (Microsoft's free virtual platform) doing the same thing and the XP VPCs worked better than the native Fista. This is even more unusual since those XP virtual machines would most certainly be using far less memory and only indirect access to devices. Yet, even in this context, XP runs faster (perceptually, of course, I have no metrics) than running the same applications an utilities inside Fista.
Then again, if you are looking for simplicity, buy the XP (you'll need it for the VMWare anyway) and upgrade from Fista to XP Pro.
Somebody ask Bill why folks who want to work inside his O/S's have to resort to contortions and machinations just to do so.
Nobody here seems to know anyone using pirated XP?
I'm sure there are thousands, if not millions of people using iffy 'Volume license' copies of XP.
However IMHO the low uptake of Vista has nothing to do with piratability.
Case in point: No doubt plenty of people (including XP pirates arrrrrrr) have since bought new PC's/hardware with legally licensed OEM Vista included... and swiftly wiped their licensed Vista off in favour of a XP install, some of these will be legit, others won't. So what?
If Vista was anywhere near as popular at launch as XP, these nice legal OEM installs would all still be there. But they're not. So: A significant number of people prefer Pirated copies of XP to legal copies of Vista, while others prefer legal copies of XP to legal copies of Vista.
Do you see the pattern?
IMHO, Vista simply fails because the user experience is worse than XP. XP works reasonably well with games, apps etc., Vista often don't. But it looks good.
Mines the warm and comfy old coat, next to the expensive looking one with leaky stitching and a zip that constantly sticks.
"In reality, what that means is that Vista is much harder to pirate..."
Bwah hah hah hah hah!
"...and gamers don't buy their operating systems."
Nice assertion. Care to back that with facts?
No? Didn't think so.
I expect that we gamers probably buy our operating systems in approximately the same proportions as you humans.
BTW, Microsoft has no reason to improve the security of Vista regarding its theft. Every system that is running a Microsoft OS isn't running something else. (I'll allow exceptions for dual booting and VM, though the dual boot argument is splitting hairs.) Microsoft would like nothing more than for people to steal Vista RATHER THAN running *nix or buying a Mac. Even if they don't make money directly, it increases their market penetration.
JFTR I have no figures to back that up, just hearsay and speculation.
Why do all you nooblets slate vista ? , i can remember the same cries from people when upgrading from windows 3.11 to windows 95.
Vista is a far better o/s than what xp is, but a little more hungry on ram.
Never base your true experience with vista with a dodgy hacked copy as they all run slow as hell.
Spend £60 and get yourself a genuine copy and see if you still have the biased view on it. And do a little digging around and you will see that vista sp1 runs faster than xp sp3.
To Chris Matchett re XP & 4Gb of RAM.
The 32bit version of XP (*any* version of VP) is only going to reliably handle the first 3Gb of RAM.
Unless you dedicate 1Gb to VRam in the BIOS, or make use of it as a RamDrive, XP can't see/use the memory addressing space above 3Gb.
(It's a limitation of all 32bit software, not just XP.)
If you get a 64bit version of XP, or of Vista, then the limit is much higher (64Gb, IIRC).
Between XP & Vista, go with XP - the headaches you encounter won't be NEARLY as mind-numbingly-stupid.
Sure, MS claims they're stopping XP sales, but *support* for XP will be another decade.
Considering what software writers aim for, programs that will run on XP will continue to be made for at least another decade.
And, last but not least, MS has claimed that they'll be releasing "Windows 7" as early as Q4 2009.
If, by some means of temporal displacement, they actually manage to DO that, Vista gets cut off at the knees before it ever gets a chance to start.
Even if MS is delayed a year or two (in getting Win7 out the door), all the business' & software writers will be "waiting for Windows 7" in order to determine what they may need to change in order to use THAT (instead of Vista).
Either way, Vista's a dead horse.
So go with XP and save yourself from tearing your hair out in frustration. =)
As for Intel not wanting to upgrade to Vista, they're not alone.
When the company you work for has over 100K computer systems located around the globe, there is one thing you absolutely DO NOT DO, and that's fail to test, test, & re-test EVERYTHING about a new OS before deploying it to your employees.
Everything has to run together like a well-oiled machine.
The payroll system has to mesh gears with the HR vacation/sick time system, which has to mesh with the Health Care systems, which meshes with the Accounting systems, whiich meshes with the Research & Development systems, which meshes with the...
All it takes is ONE of those to come to a screeching hault, and ALL of them suddenly do.
If you think for one second that any business with a brain in their head is going to entrust their entire livelihood to an OS that hasn't had the bugs worked out, stomped flat, burned out, patched over, & made as stable as humanly possible, then you're delusional.
You test it extensively on a test server(s), making sure everything works perfectly, and IF, *IF*, everything runs without a hitch six months from now, THEN you think about transitioning to the new OS.
But, as anyone who's ever done such a transition knows, it NEVER goes smoothly, the new OS *never* works right with everything, and there's literally THOUSANDS of "man hours" spent trying to track down the bugs, much less getting them fixed.
So Intel doesn't see the wisdom in upgrading to Vista?
Neither does anyone with a brain.
What a load of bandwagon muppets
Yes Vista is a resource hog, yes vista needs a "decent spec" but so what? get over yourself.
I have a P4 3.0ghz, 1GB of ram and piss poor graphics card yet i still run Vista because despite what i am told to belive by all the super cool techy people, who tell me you need 4GB of ram and a quad core processor, Vista does a job for me which i am happy with and to be honest despite its resource hunger it is a lot better then XP IMO.
No i don't play games on my PC thanks to my Wii and Xbox 360 but i do everything else without any issues.
Mac OSX fanboys can go look at their apple for longer if they like although lets be honest with the 25% premium you have paid for that shiny apple, you could have bought a better processor and twice the ram.
As for those who love their linux distro's, excellent! good for you, i don't need to tell you how much better you are then me because you use open source software.
Whilst the business case for upgrading to Vista may not be there, i remember it wasn't there when XP came out and it took maybe 3 years before all of our machines were "migrated" although none were really migrated as much as dumped when new ones came in with XP OEM.
XP before SP1 was crap and SP2 certainly made it the OS it is today so is it any surprise given microsoft's obvious business case to release a new OS every few years, ($$$$) that they end up releasing an OS that isn't excactly "finished" along with the fact that the hardware manufacturers have to spend a few years making drivers etc.
Now bring on the flame throwers!!
I went to school with Pete Noone but we used to call him Know One.
Is Vista Really SOOOO BAD?!?!?
It puzzles me to read so many people saying how 'slow' Vista is, in their opinion. My own experience is completely the opposite. I upgraded a (then 2 year old) Dell Inspiron 9300 notebook right after Vista was released to the public, back in Feb 07. Went from XP Pro to Vista Business and the system was way faster, both at booting and loading & running apps and far more stable with no systme lockups or crashes and BSODs, under Vista than it had been under XP Pro. The system felt like a new system after the change over! And this was despite Dell's website saying that that particular model wasn't 'Vista Ready'!!!!
BUT then I'm not a gamer, just an IT support bod for several NGO's, providing support services to 'regular' users, most of whom don't waste hours of their time playing pointless games.
I happen to be based in a country where the piracy of Windows OS's is rampant and almost institutionalised, and where the OS of choice for that is XP. Trying to 'fight' that is an uphill struggle that involves education as much as enforcement and isn't something that is going to change overnight. I don't see Vista being pirated here anywhere near as much as XP is and that I think is down to it's stricter activation as much as it is down to it's perceived inadequacies.
Personally I like Vista and would recommend it to anyone buying a new system today. Upgrading old hardware is another story. I would only recomend that if someone's system was purchased within the last 2yrs, from now, within 1yr prior to Vista's original launch.
Of course businesses are not going to rush out and buy a new OS as soon as it appears, they have far more to consider in the cost/benefit equation than just the fact that it's new so we've got to have it! If Microsoft have failed with Vista, then it's because of it's rediculous pricing, especially in the UK, but elsewhere also. They have over priced it for what it is, and don't seem to understand that the current pricing just makes them look greedy and actually helps to give both Vista and MS itself a bad name.
It's a matter of cost...
And don't forget some people say there is a recession on.
If I were CIO of a large business, I might think twice about investing in time and effort to upgrade the IT infrastructure this year. No doubt a shed load of old PCs would have to be replaced at the same time. Why spend the CAPEX if we could continue to sweat the old systems for a while?
If the ROI is marginal, then that will be one of the first projects to be axed.
The flip side of it is that in about 18 months time the IT budgets will get restored. Just in time for Windows 7 to be considered as the target...
Steve, Vista does not come "free" via software assurance. It has already been paid in the assurance fees. The only people that are getting Vista "free" are the pirates, everybody else is paying for it, either by way of "subscription" program, buying the box or the price being added to the HW quote.
The very measurement of the degree of the success of any paid-for software is how much it is being pirated. And even pirates are rejecting Vista. Go figure.
"All you need to pirate XP is a XP Pro and a valid VLK. How much easier do you want?"
Ummm... How about a bootable disk which lets you click once, go for a beer, and come back to a fully installed machine? For both XP and Vista, that's how easy it is nowadays - even if you have a legit licence, the 'arrrrrrrr' media are easier to use since you don't need to type in the key, click through the EULA, etc.
Yep, me too...
Gave Vista a trial, hated it. We still have XP on less than 20% of our machines ('just in case') but have Ubuntu Linux on the rest. We're finding that it runs lightning fast even on older PCs that were a bit sluggish with XP.
The result is that some proposed hardware updates aren't necessary after all - which is nice - and when XP is no longer viable we'll probably move away from Microsoft totally.
I never thought *that* would happen.
Vista. Isn't that a brand of Pasta?
Over cooked Pasta. A stodgy gooey mess. Over cooked Vista. Installed on a minimum spec PC, purchased for pennies, that then can't cope with the Anti this that and the other requirements as well as running the operating system. God forbid you should want to word process or work a spreadsheet. You got it, another stodgy gooey mess.
Who in their right mind spends nearly £200 on Vista Ultimate? why is there a cut down version and a premium version anyway?
Apple sells their OS for under £100 and there's one edition of the OS with all the features.
In fact, Apple's software on the whole is pretty well priced. £329 for Logic Studio (competitors music software is £500-600). Final Cut Pro took the video editing market by storm as well.
So to me the problem is simple, Microsoft charges too much.
£400 for an Office suite? simply stupid!
Vista changed my life
After Vista was first announced, I switched to OS X. I'm much happier. Thank-you, Bill!
Why is anybody surprised?
Intel took a commercial decision that Vista offered no benefit worth spending acres of cash on.This is not just for an OS, MS will probably give them that, but a whole bunch of porting costs.
Truth is most business organisations don't need Windows for anything except specific applications. Linux will cater for most of their needs and give added life to ageing hardware. Businesses are about bottom line not 'keeping up with Jones'.
The 'home market' is a completely different animal with the majority of the population clueless about computing. They just use the box whatever is on it. I've yet to figure out who these 'Gamers' are and why they need two grands worth of hardware. A third of that will probably achieve 99% of the performance so one assumes they have more money than sense.
@pctechxp et al
There is no point whatever in downgrading to Vista, unless your company derives the majority of its income from very long-term investment in MSFT or CNET (though that last might have been a challenge when it went from $60 to $0.85... now remember: who's been MSFT's biggest fan and how have they been rewarded?)
Vista has been the best thing that ever happened to my business (which revolves around transforming IT to support business processes rather than the usual other way round). I have hard data from several clients showing that per-user costs for Vista for the first year are over ten times the costs for Mac OS X, and six to eight times those for Linux in an office environment. (One of these companies also says that Mac people are 74% more productive than Windows usees.) People buy PCs preloaded with Vista, find it sucks with a perfect vacuum, can't always get XP upgrades supported (less available in Asia than North America), and get VERY hot under the collar. XP was the third and last great OS that MSFT ever put out (the first two being NT 3.51 and W2K), and not being able to get it is starting to give the competition significant traction. I've got systems here running XP, Vista, three Linuxes and an iMac; the latter is what I spend 90% of my own time on. It's even a much better XP machine than my year-old Acer laptop (which I otherwise think is a fine machine).
Between Vista and Office 2007, Microsoft have a lot of urgent damage control to deal with, and throwing chairs and spreading FUD are proven counterproductive methods of dealing with same. I've got a soft spot in my heart for MS; they were good for my career for 25 years... but to tie yourself to the boiler aboard Titanic requires a soft spot in the head, and I hope I don't have any of those in stock. Maybe MSFT have a SKU for it...
MS Vespa - a Quadraphenolic OS
What's in a name (albeit a deliberately obtuse typo)... bulky, inefficient, top heavy, cumbersome, underpowered, unwieldy, unstable and insecure. But HEYYYYYY... look at all those pretty bits you can get to go with it.
My heartfelt congratulations to Intel for having the intelligence, foresight and balls to tell UncleBill to Zark Off! Happy retirement UncleBill.
We'll MISS you.... NOT.
INTEL AWAITS MULTI CORE O/S FROM MICROSOFT.
Here reasoning is once hardware works, then advance thru 7 to multi core processing. CPU IS NOT Vista Ultimates' Problem Spot. Yet, Making Multi Core O/S CPU for new NT6 might be.
Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.
At least Intel see my point of view also
There is no justifiable reason to upgrade. Word doesnt run any faster, my virus scanner isnt out of date, my applications still run fast. Microsoft fail to be able to give us marketing junk of WHY we should upgrade. By upgrading you have to buy new hardware, whats the point of such a big cost in the credit crunch and the hours wasted downloading and installing hundreds of drivers. My PC with PCIe 1.x runs PCIe 2.x cards no problem so for me a cheap upgrade is all I need for latest games. MS can't give me a reason to change so therefore I wont. However, I will be looking into Windows 2008 which is where the real fun seems to be.
- Apple stuns world with rare SEVEN-way split: What does that mean?
- Patch iOS, OS X now: PDFs, JPEGs, URLs, web pages can pwn your kit
- RIP net neutrality? FCC boss mulls 'two-speed internet'
- Special report Reg probe bombshell: How we HACKED mobile voicemail without a PIN
- Sony Xperia Z2: 4K vid, great audio, waterproof ... Oh, and you can make a phone call