Dell warns businesses of Vista migration challenges

**Maccess** · 07-06-2007, 02:57 PM

Dell has taken the unusual step--for a PC vendor of its size--of toning down its sales pitch for Microsoft's Vista operating system and warning businesses of the migration challenges that lie ahead for them.

Meanwhile, Gartner notes that Vista's slow uptake among business users can be traced to the need for extensive application testing and, oftentimes, the need for new hardware.

Vista has been dogged by fears, in some cases proven, that many existing applications have to be re-written to operate on the new system.

Developers, however, have been migrating to Linux and other *nix desktops (including Mac OS X).

**kaffee** · 07-06-2007, 03:30 PM

There goes the corporate sales...

**reivi400** · 07-06-2007, 03:43 PM

Yup, as an IT Consultant, I've seen this at a client site. The corporate office, according to the network admins, is still quite hesitant to migrate to Vista.

**quietcynic** · 07-06-2007, 08:14 PM

Why would you switch to an OS which is compatible with less software, takes more hardware to run, and offers little to no performance gains? It's no mystery why Vista is a huge flop.

**bacchus_3** · 07-06-2007, 08:31 PM

I think this is the windows release that my interest on Windows drops to a not-looking-forward anticipation (I still use Windows for work and development). XP is an improvement to Win2000 but Vista is just sugar-coating.

**koppee1** · 07-08-2007, 09:54 AM

my officemate at work was asking me if i knew of a bluetooth adapter that works with vista because when she upgraded hers stop working and she can't find a driver

**manolop10** · 07-08-2007, 10:12 AM

Well the tables are turning. This looks real bad for Mr. Gates. Muwahahaha!

**tweek** · 07-08-2007, 10:53 AM

Are you talking about the Mac or Vista? MacOS has less software than Windows, takes a whole new hardware setup and offers little to no performance gains.

Lets put things in perspective for a bit. When Win95 first came out they had the same issues and to the surprise of many here the very same thing happened when OS X 10.0 came out as well. 10.0 had so much issues that Apple couldnt charge $129 for 10.1 so they gave it away for free.

Originally Posted by quietcynic

Why would you switch to an OS which is compatible with less software, takes more hardware to run, and offers little to no performance gains? It's no mystery why Vista is a huge flop.

**quietcynic** · 07-08-2007, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by tweek

Are you talking about the Mac or Vista? MacOS has less software than Windows, takes a whole new hardware setup and offers little to no performance gains.

Lets put things in perspective for a bit. When Win95 first came out they had the same issues and to the surprise of many here the very same thing happened when OS X 10.0 came out as well. 10.0 had so much issues that Apple couldnt charge $129 for 10.1 so they gave it away for free.

I feel like that comparison would be valid if Windows 95 actually turned into a good operating system. As it were, they ended up having to completely scrap the kernel (remember Windows ME?) and start using the NT kernel. Yes, that was better, but only in the sense that Chlamydia is better than AIDS.

OS X, on the other hand, was a good operating system that needed to be matured and honed. There were some complaints about performance at first, but the fact still remained that OS X crashed less than OS9 and would eventually become the platform we know and love today.

I'm not saying the engineers at MS are talentless hacks; far from it. But until the higher ups realize that they need to scrap the terrible code they cling to in the name of backwards compatibility and come up with an innovative compromise like Apple did, Windows will suck.

**tweek** · 07-08-2007, 08:11 PM

Win9x kernel combined with NT kernel to give us XP and for the small part Vista. Win9x can be compared to Classic and rightly so. The thing with Apple is that they're proposing people abandoning their flesh and blood to cure themselves of Chlamydia.

OS X 10 Beta and 10.0 were largely unuseable hence people stuck to OS9.x.x. It was only until 10.1 and 10.2 came out before people started abandoning Classic.

Vista largely abandoned legacy code hence all the incompatibility issues. I'm still using XP Pro SP2 at home largely because Vista SP1 hasnt come out yet. Heck that's the same reason people stuck to Win98SE or Win2K until XP SP1 came out.

Originally Posted by quietcynic

I feel like that comparison would be valid if Windows 95 actually turned into a good operating system. As it were, they ended up having to completely scrap the kernel (remember Windows ME?) and start using the NT kernel. Yes, that was better, but only in the sense that Chlamydia is better than AIDS.

OS X, on the other hand, was a good operating system that needed to be matured and honed. There were some complaints about performance at first, but the fact still remained that OS X crashed less than OS9 and would eventually become the platform we know and love today.

I'm not saying the engineers at MS are talentless hacks; far from it. But until the higher ups realize that they need to scrap the terrible code they cling to in the name of backwards compatibility and come up with an innovative compromise like Apple did, Windows will suck.