Microsoft struggling to convince about Vista

Rick said on Monday, 19 November 2007

25+18+9=52% for Linux. I'd say that was a little larger than 25% for Mac.

Sx66gns said on Monday, 19 November 2007

Once they take the plunge , they'll never look at windows again.

www.ubuntu.com

take a chance , you won't be disappointed.

Mark said on Monday, 19 November 2007

I find this very doubtful data unless the questions were painfully leading I question if that many people would consider movinf all of their system to a non MS equivilent, considering they would have to buy all their software again train all the staff again.

Yes vista uptake is poor by comparison to previous windows versions and the cost of moving from one version of windows to another it quite high, but I think the cost of XP to Vista has to be lower than the cost of XP to Mac OS or Ubuntu.

thisNewsIsPureFUD said on Monday, 19 November 2007

this news is pure FUD

M-RES said on Monday, 19 November 2007

Rick : good point, although they're considering the different distros as separate OS choices rather than lumping all Linux distros in as a single OS. To me it makes more sense to include Linux as a single OS, but I can understand that different people are considering different flavours of Linux because of their specific needs, so the off-the-shelf distros could be considered individual entities in this light.

I'm surprised that OS X (server?) is considered so highly though - considering the Linux switch would be much 'cheaper', at least in the eyes of many company accountants!

Emily said on Monday, 19 November 2007

Whats to buy? Linux is free, as is much of the software that runs on it... Sure theres some training to do, but really OS X and Linux all have GUI's now, so thers not even that much involved!!

Mike said on Monday, 19 November 2007

This article states nothing regarding how the statistics were gathered-size of businesses surveyed, budgets, how many respondents, etc. This is a worthless article and nothing meaningful can be drawn from it.

Ingomar said on Monday, 19 November 2007

>this news is pure FUD
Intresting, this is the first report that can be called 'negative for microsoft' that has been called FUD. So far, FUD is something which has been solely Microsofts domain.
Sweet. Is there hope for the IT industry.

Steve said on Monday, 19 November 2007

That is rather the point. You can legally get Linux software for free. In fact, you can get Open Office on your Windows box right now and not spend a penny. Not crippleware, not shareware, full working version. You can even get the source, if you want, and add features to your heart's content.

Mark said on Monday, 19 November 2007

@Emily : Theres always training costs and generally that is the highest cost.
Designers would have to learn GIMP as opposed to photoshop.
Developers would have to learn a new environment or just a whole new langauge depending on what they are doing currently.
DBA's would have to learn a new DB and how to get the most out of it.
All of which is throwing away years of experience you would essentially be swapping your experienced staff for a bunch of Juniors.

Yes Linux is free to install, if no one can use it or it take people longer to use it then the cost of associated with a system soon spirals out of control.

Mark said on Monday, 19 November 2007

I would have thought Mac OS generally is more easy adopted by the users as an alternative which in turn would have a lower total cost of ownership.

Lets not forget that most companies have a large portion of money invested in software, all of which would be binned and bought again for their respective platforms since most software vendors wont let you switch your licenences over, assuming that the software is avalible for the new platform.

Mike said on Monday, 19 November 2007

This article states nothing regarding how the statistics were gathered-size of businesses surveyed, budgets, how many respondents, etc. This is a worthless article and nothing meaningful can be drawn from it.

Tomy James said on Monday, 19 November 2007

Interesting to see people so enthusiastically defending Microsoft yet most people I know don't like Vista and that is not just conservatism and a reluctance to change.
Ask why Dell started offering XP again, or why they are offering Linux on PCs now. Look at any IT analyst group and they report end user frustration with Vista. For many businesses XP is good enough and maybe does too much. Vista is a move too far. Microsoft might be able to get the majority of the wold to use Vista by default but they are stoking up trouble for the future...

Mark said on Monday, 19 November 2007

@Tomy I dont see that many people "enthusiastically defending Microsoft" as much as saying yes vistas not perfect but 90% of IT professionals sounds fabricated.

thisNewsIsPureFUD said on Monday, 19 November 2007

What so called "IT Professional" still want to use Windows XP that requires administrative privileges for doing everything????
Vista is the first Microsoft OS where all users can use a standard account and elevate easely with UAC. IT Professionals should love Vista. So I think people voted to stay for XP, are not real IT Professionals!

Xeno said on Monday, 19 November 2007

My company already switched most of it's systems and I already helped switched another companys servers from Windows onto Linux. A managers horrible experience with Vista and an IT managers horrible experiences trying to manage Vista installations led them to ban it in one of my workplaces.

I have stopped using Windows altogether because of Vista and am now solely on Mac and Linux.

Steve said on Monday, 19 November 2007

I have tried Vista and Hated it. I purchased a MacBook when Dell was in its phase of not allowing you to choose anything but Vista as an OS. With VMware Fusion (Or Parallels) I have the best of both worlds and could not be happier. I can totally believe that alot of IT professions will not migrate to Vista unless it is for the new DirectX10 games coming out :) If it comes to that I will have a nice hot swap harddrive with Vista on it just for playing Games.

Jay said on Monday, 19 November 2007

@Mark
"DBA's would have to learn a new DB"

You use the tool that is right for the job. If you run Oracle continue to run it, if you run MySQL continue to run it,if you run MS SQL Server keep a windows server around.

Most databases run on multiple platforms, choose the right one for your business, requirements and budget.

Xeno said on Monday, 19 November 2007

For those who insist this is FUD, there are those in the IT community who are getting informed and realizing that they DON'T need to buy all new computers and upgrades to switch to VISTA. They don't ned to purchase all new software. They don't need to buy antivirus, antispam, antispyware, etc and can instead just switch to Linux for alot of their needs.

For some office workers, maybe not. Maybe they'll just switch to Mac.

Steve said on Monday, 19 November 2007

I have tried Vista and Hated it. I purchased a MacBook when Dell was in its phase of not allowing you to choose anything but Vista as an OS. With VMware Fusion (Or Parallels) I have the best of both worlds and could not be happier. I can totally believe that alot of IT professions will not migrate to Vista unless it is for the new DirectX10 games coming out :) If it comes to that I will have a nice hot swap harddrive with Vista on it just for playing Games.

Joe said on Monday, 19 November 2007

@Steve: Let me get this straight, you dropped $2000+ on a $1000 laptop so you wouldn't ever have to use Windows again, because you hate Windows, only to turn around and install Windows on your over-priced paper weight? Congratulations, you win a moron award.

Don said on Monday, 19 November 2007

@Joe: MacBooks are strating at $1099 and take far less compute power to run a solid UNIX OS. Why don't you continue to go with the OS that requires a gig of RAM just to click the start button. Windows is built on a turd foundation with a bunch of pretty CPU-cycle sucking processes and it's made for IT professionals that don't have the skill to use real UNIX tools. Now who's the moron?

sandekt said on Monday, 19 November 2007

Speaking as new blood, I am in my last year of college, but have been 'into' computers since windows 3.1. Albeit I was really young, I have seen these OSes evolve. Recently, my girlfriend's parents have gotten a Vista machine. I have had terrible experience with it thus far. When I was growing up, Windows and Linux co-existed in my house, but I don't see Linux and Vista co-existing when it is forced down the pipe.

Divebus said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

Having fought with Windows specific nonsense for years, I started deploying Macs (over 90) four years ago and it's been wonderful, including Servers. I've also had Suse, Red Hat and Ubuntu projects under consideration for deployment. Linux servers are fine in task specific applications but my OS X servers have been a tireless Swiss Army knife - difficult to replicate with the various Boxen. Ubuntu machines are rather clumsy and limiting compared to the Mac on the desktop/laptop. The Mac actually offers much more right out of the box with a rich universe of additions available. Anyone who clings to Windows in Business saying Macs are too expensive hasn't actually checked it out, is obviously stealing software, probably lives for self engrandizement and has decided their time is worth nothing. Windows' time has come and gone. Oh, and all the people I know with Vista on their machines HATE it and are now SERIOUSLY shopping for a Mac. It's "No Contest" once they walk into the Apple Store.

IA said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

Vista is the trojan horse prepared by secret linux agents in M$ :)

Mark from USA said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

" What so called "IT Professional" still want to use Windows XP that requires administrative privileges for doing everything???? "

This IT Professional wants his users to do everything while having the protection of a Limited User Account. Vista is just Win98 with a pretty face.

Nice FUD by the way.

jkafhask said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

I thought linux was a kernal not an operating system...correct me if im wrong but if you want to dump all *nix together in this survey then shouldnt you add osx to all the linux varients? And as an IT admin in a government location, I have XP buttoned down tightly. Vista offers me absolutely nothing, and never will. I'll most likely leapfrog it and be forced to upgrade to the next dog M$ throws out.

Tezdoll said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

It would cost twice as much to switch out a Windows System to a linsux/mac-n-trash system. You have to switch out servers, and re-teach people how to use this stuff. Vista is just fine, it works just fine, and i will migrate to it when the time comes. You ubuntu fans and mac asshats need to get a grip.

@Mike Re:FUD said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

You, sir, are an idiot. You blithely state "This article states nothing regarding... how many respondents, etc."

Yet, the article clearly states (in the first sentence, nonetheless!) "Ninety percent of 961 IT professionals surveyed said..."

In my opinion, you are merely upset that you are part of the 10% who like Vista, and are apparently wrong. Congratulations.

no fight but... said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

Tezdoll opinions like yours are pure bullshit - twice, trice etc as much costs?- ridiculous. Where did you got these numbers from? When I see such stupid and I say that again stupid not relevant empty posts from people who do or know nothing about software, hardware etc. I can say only that you must be paid by MS or politely not very clever)) I use all systems where needed and everybody who can count knows that more developers(Ive heard this somwhere before...)) of operating systems, software on market beter for clients(buyers, ordinery people whoever) as we can choose. Your thinking is like e.g. one car producer is enough why should we have more than that? I answer because the quality and price would be shity.

no fight but... said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

Tezdoll opinions like yours are pure bullshit - twice, trice etc as much costs?- ridiculous. Where did you got these numbers from? When I see such stupid and I say that again stupid not relevant empty posts from people who do or know nothing about software, hardware etc. I can say only that you must be paid by MS or politely not very clever)) I use all systems where needed and everybody who can count knows that more developers(Ive heard this somwhere before...)) of operating systems, software on market beter for clients(buyers, ordinery people whoever) as we can choose. Your thinking is like e.g. one car producer is enough why should we have more than that? I answer because the quality and price would be shity.

@no fight Re: Quality and Price. said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

If the price was free, and the source was open, then the cars would be the best ever. Every other Joe would be in his garage on weekends, tinkering with the design to get a few more horsepower, "just one more" mile per gallon, a little more information on the in-dash displays. This is why linux in general has been so popular for so long - yes, there is infinite variety, and not everyone wants to be a developer, but there are also several "vanilla" versions available for those who just want a "daily driver".

@Microsoft Re: Vista Adoption said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

In my humble opinion, Microsoft's main mistake with Vista was in trying to push it as their new flagship OS. It was obvious to me within minutes that while a new (computer) user would be able to get their documents to open, surf the web, and check their email, any (experienced) user would be frustrated with the "hiding" of any "useful" functionality. The user interface changed dramatically, making it practically unusable for those who have experience with previous Microsoft products. This learning curve makes linux and OS X more attractive.

@Microsoft (continued) said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

In other words, Vista has given linux and Apple a shot in the arm that would have been years away, had there not been a new Microsoft OS in 2007. No, they're not going to lose their dominance (this year), but the idea has taken root. Ubuntu's ease of use is at least as good as Vista's, and the price tag makes it much more attractive. No, it's not perfect, either, but it's FREE. If I were to pay $400 for a new OS, I would *expect* it to be perfect... matter of fact, it better make coffee for me, and walk the dog while I check my email.

Ix said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

I just can't let the crap people are spouting about Linux and Apple costing oh so much to switch fly. Linux is now easy to use and if you can use window you can use Linux and probably get more done easier. Someone whined about training on GIMP, but I know as a fact that without training people do less with Photoshop than with GIMP (as I've trained people on, and have used both), so take your BS elsewhere. Apple prices have come down too and the machines can do more with less than a Vista machine can. The total cost of operating Vista now far outweighs the cost of switching, and you'll get more done on another OS.

BT said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

Mark said:
Developers would have to learn a new environment or just a whole new langauge depending on what they are doing currently.

Reply:
That's not necessarily true anymore. Consider than many develop for the web and that .NET is a minority share of the market. It could be argued that most developers have already left MS for a client-neutral platform. And considering .NETs low adoption compared to Java and PHP you might conclude they also left MS for a server-neutral platform.

Sure, there still are some markets (like video games) where developing specifically for Windows is appealing, but in the business realm is seems clear to say the ship has sailed. Developing specifically for a MS web client (IE) means you ignore millions of potential customers.

david C. said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

this news wins "The Best FUD of the Year 2007" award.

Brian said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

"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."

If you think you'll have trouble migrating your apps to vista, that is nothing compared to migrating them to linux/mac.

Brian said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

@BT: "Consider than many develop for the web and that .NET is a minority share of the market. "

Is .net the minority? Source please.

.NET isn't even the issue, it's stuff based on Win32.

ue said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

@Tezdoll. You will need training to switch to Vista as well, in fact my guess is that the change from e.g XP+MS Office 2003 to Vista+MS-Office 2007 will require more training than Switching to e.g. Ubuntu+OpenOffice. As for the need to switch servers, Linux can be controlled from Active Directory, and can mount Windows shares just like windows clients can be handled from Linux. In other words you switch the parts you want. Linux is doing its best to be interoperable with as many systems as possible. Unlike Microsoft the Linux community have no incentive to create user "lock in".

Amrein said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

Way to manage corporate install base from Linux ?

Mandriva :

www.mandriva.com/enterprise/en

Suse (I don't use it):

www.novell.com/products/zenworks/overview.html

Siv said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

I am an IT Consultant based in the UK and a staunch Microsoft Supporter for more years than I'd care to remember, but I have to say that MS have lost the plot a bit with Vista.

They seem to have made changes to the way things are done just for the sake of being different. A typical example being "Add or Remove Programs" which is now "Programs and Features" why?? It just makes geeral usage more difficult and productivity goes down, users spend time hunting for something that didn't need changing.

Siv said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

At a technical level I can justify the improvements as they make sense, better security, better control over processes so that you can cancel long running network searches rather than waiting for a timeout. Better memory management and crash protection.

That is all negated by the losses in productivity down to silly changes for changes sake in the UI.

They have done a similar thing with the ribbon paradigm in Office 2007. It would have been fine if they had allowed you to revert to a classic view if you are an old hand and prefer the old way of doing things as that is more productive.

Siv said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

If I was MS I would add a new "Revert to classic" style that gets rid of all the "me too" stuff that's only there to shut up the Mac "form over functionalty" brigade. If you really want transparent windows and aero glass, you probably should be using a Mac. That's why I have always been a Windows person, I prefer the Windows Classic style, even on XP it just works better and wastes less CPU and RAM. Admittedly it doesn't look as gorgeous as a Mac interface, but I need to do work not marvel at the interface!

Siv said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

Windows users in business want high performance, compatibility with their legacy applications so they can get value out of the applications they have probably paid dearly for and function over form.

MS should produce WIndows 7 as quickly as possible. In the background retain the sensible Vista features like UAC to help protect users from infecting themselves with Worms and Viruses. Have a truly compatible with XP "Classic Style" so that your average office worker can fire up Windows 7 and not realise they have changed from XP other than it runs faster, more securely and procides new usability features that aid functionality NOT form.

Siv said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

For the home user versions, Windows 7 should have a series of themes that allow the home user to decide between multimedia, games and home office.

The Multimedia version would probably look similar to Vista and a Mac with settings tuned for media playback and rich user interface.

Siv said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

The games version would look good but have all the non-essential services ripped out so that the maximum performance and system resources are available for playing games. Graphics processing would be enhanced to boost the game playing graphics and performance as highly tuned as possible without compromising stability,

The "Home Office" version would have the more basic classic look, tons of software added to aid backwards compatbility and make installing any device very simple possibly with Windows Update downloading more drivers as they become available whether you have the device or not, so that when you do come to install that device the driver is already there tucked away in compressed form ready toi install without needing additional disks.

Siv said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

They should get this out as soon as possible so that their main customers (business) can get it instead of Vista. I think a lot of business users would go for that.

Minion4Hire said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

Does anyone remember the fuss and bother that XP brought with it when it first released, and all the disgruntled admins who had a death grip on Win2K? Crippled firewall, modified UI, program incompatibility... it's the same song and dance all over again. I'm not a fan of Vista as it is, but it's not the ebola virus some here seem to be making of it. Wait for a service pack or two to smooth out the current issues (not unlike XP) and the Vista lynching will most likely subside.

RFH said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

> I thought linux was a kernal (sic) not an operating system

It's nice to see that you have learned of your mistake here.

If Linux is a kernel, what the heck is the "Linux kernel"?

-RFH

Wolfric said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

Minion4Hire, XP was crap when it came out, I was one of those people who stuck with w2k for a long time. Until SP2 in fact. I had a quick look at Vista and decided it wasnt for me. I used to be an MS user from DOS days, but now I run Ubuntu and love it! Finally feels like my PC again.

Real challenges: Getting the facts and going 64 bi said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

""Almost half of all participants (45%) cited challenges with system management in non-Windows operating systems as preventing them from adopting" alternatives, the report states."

This argument is always made out of laziness, ignorance or job protection. Fact: It takes 1/10 the IT staff to maintain Macintosh boxes on a per computer basis. I am all for the proliferation and development of Linux on into the future, as well as every other flavor of UNIX. But Mac OS X is easily the easiest to implement and maintain of any UNIX, and it matches the capability of the best of the rest of the UNIX options.

And how difficult is it to implement and maintain a Linux box? Sadly I don't have figures, but it is drastically more difficult than Macintosh. Relative to Windows, you don't have the malware to worry about, but you do have more user-hostile maintenance tools and processes.

Real challenges: Getting the facts and going 64 bi said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

One blindfold that appears to over the eyes of many IT staff is the mounting pressure to go to 64 bit computing. With Windows you are hosed by the fact that Microsoft do not have ANY 64 bit version of Windows that is 32 bit backwards compatible. You have to buy all new, specifically 64 bit software. Modern PCs with the current stable of CPUs are nearly all 64 bit capable. You'd have to get some trashy version of a Celeron box to get buy 32 bit hardware these days. And yet just about everyone is stuck running 32 bit Windows with 32 bit apps because of the 64 bit Windows problem.

Meanwhile, Mac OS X has been 64 bit, with 32 bit backwards compatibility, since 10.4 Tiger from over two years ago. The transition to 64 bit hardware using a 64 bit operating system has been 100% transparent. Toss in the fact that, contrary to mythology, the Macintosh has always been the platform with the lowest total cost. Any serious futurist knows what is the current best option in computing.

Bob said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

"Designers would have to learn GIMP as opposed to photoshop." - That's funny.
Clearly not written by a designer!

SteveOC (part 1) said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

When talking about the failings of Vista, a lot of people remember back to the slow uptake of XP and call deja vu all over again.

Perhaps that is true, but this time, there are 3 things that are vitally different about the market that Vista is coming into compared to the one that XP was born into :

1) The internet. In 2001 (when XP was released), applications ran on desktops, and primitive web pages were occasionally accessed with 56k modems. In 2007, cheap broadband is everywhere, and fast responsive Web2.0 applications host a lot of business workflow apps. The desktop itself hasnt evolved much in comparison to the web over this same period. The need for a new desktop in 2007 is not as compelling as it was in 2001, since the desktop is becoming just a launching pad to the web.

SteveOC (part 2) said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

2) Linux & Open Source. Linux has come a long way since 2001. The major name brand apps are still not there, but for the usual WordProcessing/Email/Spreadsheets/Surfing/Games workload, it fits in well enough for the average user. You cant say the same about linux in 2001. Vista is born into a far more competitive environment than XP was.

3) Hardware prices. In 2001, operating systems cost in the hundreds and a new computer cost in the thousands. Today, Vista costs about the same .. BUT .. and here is the killer, you can buy a new computer from Wallmart, including linux, for LESS than the price of Vista. OUCH !!

All these factors combine to make Vista look like a white elephant. A big shiny expensive white elephant. If they had knocked it out in 2003, it might have had its day ... but in 2007, they have really missed the boat.

Steve (part 3) said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

And yet, they are now talking up Windows 7.0 instead. Lets look another 5 years down the track and see what we can expect Windows 7.0 to be up against :

- Cheap 100mbit broadband everywhere, hosting everything from interactive 'desktop' apps to movies on demand.
- Open standards for everything, everywhere.
- Huge emerging markets of a new generation of users bought up on OLPC and similar projects.
- New, fast, internet capable computers readily available for very little money.

Under the circumstances, Id say that not only is Vista in trouble of remaining relevant, but Microsoft as a whole is rapidly running out of any reason to exist as well.

raboon said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

It's funny how so many so called IT professionals stick with microsoft products through thick and thin and won't consider alternatives. How can these guys possibly know what they are talking about with no flight time on Macs and Linux systems. In what way can these people be called IT pros?

Open your minds please. And since when have M$ actually cared about what their users wanted? Don't hold your breath for Windows 7.

raboon said on Tuesday, 20 November 2007

It's funny how so many so called IT professionals stick with microsoft products through thick and thin and won't consider alternatives. How can these guys possibly know what they are talking about with no flight time on Macs and Linux systems. In what way can these people be called IT pros?

Open your minds please. And since when have M$ actually cared about what their users wanted? Don't hold your breath for Windows 7.

doeppjakab said on Wednesday, 21 November 2007

Rick, in the first messages says "25+18+9=52% for Linux. I'd say that was a little larger than 25% for Mac." Actually if you read the article closely, it's 25 (RH)+18 (Ubuntu)+18(SuSE)+9 (Other), which is 70%.

Microsoft is losing by forcing people to use a system they don't want.

Stomfi said on Wednesday, 21 November 2007

For all those MSCE professionals, Linux and OSS has been a disruptive technology, just like UNIX was for all those IBM mainframe professionals.

No matter how much FUD IBM created, no matter how much support existing professional gave, no matter that mainframe centric management tools wouldn't work on UNIX, and no matter that mainframe software hadn't been ported yet, change came to the industry.

Cheaper UNIX needed terminals and MS filled the role with the intelligent and cheap IBM PC.

Now Linux can fill both ends, and a few extras, of the IT manager's software resource needs, without needing hardware upgrades.

Change is inevitable and costs must be contained, which is why the expense of a Vista upgrade is a dumb move for cost effective computing in the enterprise. when cheaper and often more robust alternatives are available.

Fat Naveed said on Wednesday, 21 November 2007

@Real Challenges: Getting . . .
Macs aint the easiest to manage - you probably don't know too much about other OS's. I'm reasonably new to Linux and know that capabilities exceed those of Macs due to Linux's freedom from vendor lock-in. Even the maintenance tools can be changed for others that suit you. Do that in a Mac?

Divebus said on Wednesday, 21 November 2007

Fat Naveed: "Macs aint the easiest to manage..."

Huh? My IT staff was cut by 60% and the only thing that made that work was migrating off Windows and on to Macs. I'm the Maytag repairman now. Even the users noticed to the point where most of them bought their own Macs - complete converts.

Siv: "...I need to do work not marvel at the interface!"

Both you and MS think it's just the interface. There are so many useful, helpful and thoughtful things on the Mac that neither of you will ever comprehend. It isn't perfect but Windows is a relative usability train wreck.

igoryonya said on Wednesday, 21 November 2007

This is not worthless or unreliable article, as many people here say. I played with Vista since it was released. I got completely disappointed in it. To make a good point that I am not totally a Microsoft hater, when XP came out, I fell in love with it.
Knowing that, after a couple of years, Microsoft will stop supporting XP, and viruses and security exploits don't stay on the same level of evolution, but keep getting more sophisticated, I really started thinking about moving computers on my network to Linux. I already installed a test Linux server and am testing different ways of gradually moving services from Windows Server to Linux, then I will continue with workstations.
I am so depressed about the dull Microsoft future, that I am even considering on moving completely to Linux at home also. All my life I was a DOS/Windows user. I only played with Linux, periodically installing it on spare computers and playing with it. I always liked it, but would never move to it from Windows.

igoryonya (part2) said on Wednesday, 21 November 2007

Windows was always my primary workstation. Linux was just for playing around. I don't consider myself as a Linux pro. I am a pro in Windows. Other techies call me their technical god :), but I am only good like that in Windows. In Linux, I am just a user that knows his way around, but that's ok. I will learn what needs to be learned, especially that I already know how to configure and work with a lot of major opensource software that I would need to use to replace windows services, such as apache, bind, samba, mozilla, openoffice, staroffice, vi, bash, vnc, openvpn, perl, many more..., since I've been using them for years on Windows :).
When I saw this article, it just proved to me that I am actually not the only one with such opinion.

igoryonya (part3) said on Wednesday, 21 November 2007

I only worry, that many new games that I would like to ply are DX10, which would require Vista. I probably will have to install Vista just for games. :)
To those, that say that there is hacked, ported DX10 to XP, I tried it. My Windows didn't boot after a first reboot after install. Blue screen of death. I tried everything, nothing helped it to boot until I restored a backup of the system registry and driver folder. In other words, for some reason, it didn't work for me, even though I have all the latest hardware, well almost latest.

chris said on Wednesday, 21 November 2007

SHUT UP ABOUT LINUX. Yes its faster looks better and has good options. Photoshop vs gimp no contest photoshop kills it. Now play games on gimp WTF? you can't! some games you can but, the benchmarks are horrible in 99% of newer games. I understand games like quake run faster but, the difference between 500fps and 600 makes no difference when you are using vsync expecially.

igoryonya said on Wednesday, 21 November 2007

chris: "Photoshop vs gimp"

I don't know if you are a graphic designer or not to say that, but I don't see any advantage photoshop has over gimp. On the other hand, there is one thing in gimp, that I know, that gimp can do, but photoshop can't. That's not the point though. I prefer Jasc Paint Shop Pro. It has always been as powerful as Photoshop, and now, it's even more powerful, not to mention, easier to use. There are also few additional features that exist in PSP, but not in Photoshop. I, personally, use both. Most of the raster graphic projects, I do in PSP, and sometimes use Photoshop for rare things that are quicker to do in Photoshop. Otherwise PSP is better for me.
Whoever thinks that Photoshop is better then Gimp has no reason not to switch to Linux. If I want to use Photoshop, or PSP, for that matter, I just install it on Linux over Wine. I've seen many people successfully use Photoshop on Linux over Wine API. I don't think we have to make an issue over this.

Logan said on Friday, 23 November 2007

You linux/mac elitists are fools. I don't like M$ either, but if you think switching out a 50 user system on the fly to mac/linux from MS is easy and cost effective than you clearly have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. kubuntu is great...but you train the idiot sales force here how to get AIM running on it...and migrate the Exchange enviroment while you're at it.

igoryonya said on Sunday, 25 November 2007

Vista is so very different from XP. I had to spend a day to figure out what's where in there. In comparison to XP, everything in Vista is illogically located. To complete a simple task, it will cycle you back and forth through those annoying wizard windows, not to mention that you have to keep clicking on those nag messages, asking if I really want to start whatever program.
People would have to learn a completely new operating system when you move them to Vista, why not just to move them to Linux instead, since it will take as much time to learn a way around Linux, as it would in Vista, especially, if you configure a desktop to look like in XP.

Cheers

igoryonya said on Sunday, 25 November 2007

I pretty much prepared people to migration anyway. Gradually moved everybody from MS Office to Open Office, Mirablis ICQ to Miranda, Internet Explorer and Outlook Express to SeaMonkey and always used an open source mail server and web based Perl collaboration utility and calendar, so, I am pretty much set on the client side, I just have to gradually move all the services from Windows Server to Linux.

Navigate the seas of the sun said on Monday, 26 November 2007

Once more game companies/graphics card makers start developing for something other than DirectX, more games will be available for Linux, it's only a matter of time.

Ubuntu.com : freedom is here!