Shoutbox

quote:

---

Originally posted by zdnet.co.uk
Companies shouldn't rush to upgrade to Microsoft Windows Vista, according to analysts at Gartner, who believe most firms could safely hold back until 2008.

The majority of improvements in Vista will be security-related and most of this functionality "is available via third-party products today", Gartner claimed in a research note published on Friday.

While Vista will feature "offer incremental, evolutionary improvements" over its predecessors, XP users should "pursue a strategy of managed diversity" only bringing in Vista on new machines and not until 2008, the analysts recommend.

In its research note, Ten reasons you should and shouldn't care about Microsoft's Windows Vista client,  Gartner highlights some of the weaknesses in Microsoft's platform strategy.

Internet Explorer (IE) 7 will have many security improvements "to stem defections from IE to Firefox" and "has been accelerated" to be delivered in early 2006. But the "important ability to restrict some browser activities to a lower privileged process" will not be available because it requires Vista functionality," cautioned Gartner.

The analysts acknowledged that companies who use IE7 and Vista will have fewer points of weakness.

Also on the security issue, the Windows Vista personal firewall is better than the one included in XP Service Pack 2, Gartner acknowledged, and will, crucially, improve security on inbound and outbound traffic — a particular issue with laptops. But, the analysts say, users should already have "a more than capable" firewall on their laptops anyway.

Another Vista feature that Microsoft is emphasising is its search capabilities. "Search is slow in Windows XP and files, email and calendar objects cannot be found with a single search." While Microsoft has tried to remedy this in Vista, "competent third-party desktop tools are already available" from companies like Google, Gartner pointed out.

---

Source info

That is like 3 years away, it annoys me when they keep delaying stuff like this, why can't they just stick to a deadline, I understand that there will be problems with the code etc. Surely, they should be qualified enough to be able to code something that works properly for once, how many people do they have on their team, probably a few hundred, I'm sure they could sort some fixes out between them...

quote:

---

Originally posted by traxor
That is like 3 years away, it annoys me when they keep delaying stuff like this, why can't they just stick to a deadline, I understand that there will be problems with the code etc. Surely, they should be qualified enough to be able to code something that works properly for once, how many people do they have on their team, probably a few hundred, I'm sure they could sort some fixes out between them.

---

im with you there but Due to this Being the Real first release of 64Bit Operating software for Microsoft, i can see why they wanan delay a few things, but in another way, i'd have to agree with the Gartner  Report, in some cases,  i think its best over all that it is delayed but to also Miss a release candidate to make up for the Delay is a Bad thing,  you dont see Redhat or Novel or any other company doing anything like that,

i read that a neowing long time ago, it like wat happend with xp, some comapnies still are under millenium edition or even w98, as long as they dont really need it they wont upgrade.

ill probly dual boot vista instead of upgrading from windows xp. Besides, its alwase better to start fresh from the OS instead of upgrading.

guanako hits the nail right on the head. Firstly, this is old news and more importantly, this is how any decent orginisation works. Before upgrading to a new OS they have to test to ensure that it'll work correctly along side their requirements.

Any company who decide to rush ahead and do something like this without testing are idiots when they realise things won't work.

One of my clients is a large corporate network (500 or so PC's in the office - 200 laptops etc) and they upgraded to Windows 2000 for their desktop machines in 2003. The same goes for the New South Wales [state in Australia] Department of Educaiton & Training. Windows 2000 became standard back then and Windows XP about halfway through last year.

this will be a setback to some people as they have been using the vista beta version and will be wanting to see more of it. I for one wouldve liked to see it come out sooner but i understand why they want to delay the process. they have to get everything right to get the most out of it. i just hope that it actually does come out sooner than that date. ive also read that there is going to be about 6 versions compared to xp's 2 versions but i am not sure about it.

Vista Runs real crappy on my pc, so I'll will get a new PC with it built in when they come out I reckon, Or simply get a new PC with XP and dual boot anyways. (I hate Microsoft for delays, they do it to us all the time. it sucks, get off your asses an just do it already).

quote:

---

Originally posted by traxor
That is like 3 years away, it annoys me when they keep delaying stuff like this, why can't they just stick to a deadline, I understand that there will be problems with the code etc. Surely, they should be qualified enough to be able to code something that works properly for once, how many people do they have on their team, probably a few hundred, I'm sure they could sort some fixes out between them...

---

you misread it, this is something that a third party company reccomended, not Microsoft.

quote:

---

Originally posted by saralk
you misread it, this is something that a third party company reccomended, not Microsoft.

---

i think Trax knows that eh,  all traxor was saying was "why cant Microsoft get there act together " in simple terms  not stating  that Microsoft wrote or said what i posted,