Microsoft admits Vista failure

I wasn't solely looking at the price. If you're used to Office 2000/2003/XP, you'll feel right at home with OpenOffice. The most difficult difference is probably that the page and printer settings aren't in the printer settings (there are none), but in format -> page.

Office 2007 is an entirely different animal, that requires you to prep the users.

According to Microsofts own Vista compatibility check, all those older versions of Office aren't compatible. So that makes it a choice between:

1. Not upgrading to Vista
2. Spending lots of money on Vista, Office 2007 and user training
3. Saving the money and needed training for Office 2007 and using OpenOffice

 

No offense taken byt your comment, and I feel I should address it since you asked in a polite manner - -and it made me laugh a little.

The position I'm in isn't related to helpdesk functionality -- we contract out our 1st and 2nd level helpdesk functions, and we have a seperate entire group that manages them, maintains our knowledgebase, and takes care of problems where the founder of Springfield (dang man, how old is the founder of Springfield these days? ) about where is mouse cursor really is...

The name of my team is "Desktop Design", and there are two halves -- operations and projects. The projects side takes an app, defines the standards in which our company will use it and have it configured. They build the SMS installer packages, perform user accepetance and pilot testing, generates SDLC and testing methodology documentation. They also define the setup, config and standards for new operating systems and new hardware.

My half is the operations team, and we are in charge of all back-of-house deployment functions -- apps and OS. We also are in charge of taking the project teams' OS standards and config document and "packaging" the OS into a Ghost file or WIM or whatever we need it to be. We also own hardware compatibility issues (they decide, we make it work) all automation tools and functions that operate on or against a workstation.

These two halves of this team are essentially responsible for nothing more than uber-testing of all new hardware, new software and new OSes coming into our environment. Most of these are entirely managed as a true project by our Project Management Office -- complete with deliverables and deadlines. Even if it isn't big enough for a true project, we have a ton of internal process that ensures everything goes through the wringer forward and back.

Vista is big enough obviously to warrant a "true" project managed by our PMO team. Which is exactly why I can tell you the day we'll be launching it, every task between here and there, and how we're progressing. And right now, we're progressing well. And I mean, very well.

What's really interesting about this? Our core business has zero to do with technology. In fact, if you ask our leadership, they'd flat tell you we're not a technology company, and they'd be right. But you would never guess it if you came to work for us...

I can't give precise examples for likely being in violation of NDA or something, but our network infrastructure is something along the lines of a geek's dream. Main campuses spread across the continent, but connected by OC48's and MPLS. Wiring closets backed by two Cisco 6500-series chassis per floor on a 10Gbit fiber backbone hosted by a pair of Cisco 8500-series chassis per building.

Desktops, laptops , printers, copiers are no more than three years of age and all 100% brand name and standardized (non-one-off) models. Shrinkwrap apps kept within one major version of most-current.

Vista is a project like any other to us. And we're deploying it now because we want XP to be long-gone when the sunset date hits. That's only three years away, which means if we're only deploying Vista with newly leased equipment, we need to start this year in order to make sure XP is gone in three years.

We have the people capacity, technology know-how and infrastructure to make this a snap. And we are So to say that Vista is going to cost us basically nothing might be a bit of a stretch -- but it's not going to cost us any more than any other PMO-led project we've had in the past. Especially since we're not having to do any upgrades

Ok, now for Frank:

I'm not sure where you got your data, or how out-of-date it is. We're deploying Vista, and we're using Office 2003 -- with the 100% backing and blessing from our Microsoft TAM.

So, how about option 4: Deploy Vista, keep Office 2003. Make a decision next year

 

Yeah, like using VisualBasic or Activex controls in a simple Excel sheet. Oh the stupidity I have to work with

 

The only problem that vista have are windows xp. Windows xp are the first consumer OS from microsoft which, at their current state, are "good enough". They are pretty stable, secure and they perform "ok". I mean after all those windows 95, 98, ME, windows xp seems like a godlike OS(at its current state).

And microsoft will have this problem from now on. Since they keep improving their products, it will become harder for the consumer to see the added benefits of the new products. That's why ms wants to change their billing system.

They promote the "1 license per machine" scheme so that you cant use the same OS license that you have on your current pc on your future pc. Moreover, they (will) have a "license per year" scheme, where you just pay x ammount of money each year in order to have windows+office licenses on all your home pc.

The hard thing for microsoft is to enforce these new billing methods. Of course, most average joes buy pc with oem windows in them and they buy windows every time they buy a new pc. So in a sense, this new billing system already is in effect. But still, it isnt quite there IMO.

Microsoft should have kept the old recipe and just keep producing crappy OS every 2 years so that people would be forced to buy the new OS all the time. XP stayed in the market for far too long time and they got overrefined(by ms standards anyway) so now they will be hard to knock off.

The only complain that i have about vista, is the damn drivers. I simply dont understand how is it possible not to have drivers for popular mainstream hardware(hp laser printer with wifi for example) when vista were available for testing for so long.

 

well, christ, then i guess it's true -- you have a dream job. Not saying you don't deserve it, as I'm sure your team worked hard to get things where they are today -- but for the rest of us (well, thank Jebediah I'm out of the corporate world now), it's not going to be so pretty (understaffed, usually).

 

So, to make a long story short: does anyone needs Vista? No. But, if you're an IT professional who prefers the latest above the old but functional, has a job of recommending and implementing that and works for a company that likes to spend lots of money on that, then Vista is the way to go.

And it helps if you are good at selling it to the management.

 

Tell that to people developing DX10 games

 

Well, Microsoft already spend that huge amount of money on developing Vista, paying those developers to do that is like freebies in comparison. And likely much more effective than a huge marketing campaign.

 

Agreed. It's what I do, and most of the others I know.

 

I want a good reason why Vista is a games and home OS and has no value to business...

When did encryption of the entire drive linked to the TPM in your machine become a games and home use feature?

Being able to now control virtually every OS setting via group policy is somehow a games and home OS "cool tool to have"?

How much of the vastly improved unattend functions are a home and games OS request?

Howabout languages that are completely abstracted from the core OS files so you don't have to regionalize your images? Or a kernel that can autodetect and install new HAL layers with a sysprepped image? Or the built-in disk imaging tool? Or the ability to mount said image as a folder and slipstream-in patches and OS updates?

What parts of this are irrelevant to business again? Care to elaborate?

 

Interestingly, independant studies have shown that even the interface can have large cost savings over time, via productivity increases when deployed a large number of systems.

 

So, Vista both feels like same old OS AND will take months to get uses to?

 

Even with XP, it makes a lot of sense to make all users members of the power users group. Simply because most applications aren't so nicely restricted, and many things simple users should be allowed to do are impossible for generic users as well.

So, while it sounds very nice that you can tinker indefinitely with the access restrictions through policies, that also increases the workload for the administrators manyfold. Which, of course, many IT managers consider a good thing: more people and budget for them.

 

I don't know where you believe you're getting this info, but you're quite far from the truth. Administrative lockdown keeps users from doing inane, retarded things on their workstation that they have no business doing.

The company I work for has ~5000 people with laptops, and another several thousand with desktops. We somehow "get by" with about five dozen IT staff and about two dozen helpdesk contractors. So, 80 people support 7500 workstations, 500+ servers, four major campuses, more than a three dozen high-bandwidth-connected remote offices, and satellite / DSL-connected "buildings" that number in the tens of thousands

Group policy somehow makes MORE WORK for an admin? You don't even belong in this conversation any longer.

Edit:
I won't even try to say that we're using the full capacity of group policy under XP, and yet we're already VERY excited about the extra functionality within Vista. There are things we've wanted to do for years, some of which we've "hacked together" by way of VBS scripts, WMI queries and SMS subscriptions to make work, but will work TONS better using the built-in functionality now within GPO.

 

My second (and most successful) total distribution implementation made all users local admin. (The server service was killed, though.)

Because, why would you care if a user fucks up his computer, if it gets repaired automatically, or at most takes five minutes work to restore? And you cannot prevent everything with a technical solution. My solution was to simply bill their boss. That works extremely well, and has insignificant overhead. Which is paid for.

And the first implementation of that consisted of... two small kickstart scripts. And of course a lot of plain textfiles with configuration data.

 

Welp, "bill their boss" doesn't exist in this organization and we're far from the only ones doing it that way. Further, what kind of "restore" takes five minutes? Maybe if all they did was toast a very small application and they're connected via some sort of high speed connection. It doesn't take five minutes to restore 13,000 my documents files that you can't locally access because they've removed some stupid DLL trying to clean their hard drive to make room for more documents, especially when they're in a field office 1300 miles away.

No, you need to think a tiny bit larger than a small upstart company with 50 employees. You need to think about people who don't even have an office, outside of their house or their company car. You also need to think about people who dont' have high-speed network attachments in such locations, who also can't be down for more than a day without severely impacting business.

You keep making assumptions as if you've seen what "Big business" wants, but you're so incredibly far off base that it doesn't even make sense any longer. Stop thinking about the nice little hometown office with two IT guys with a nest of network cables, off-the-shelf BestBuy equipment and some Linksys hardware.

Think instead of a multibillion dollar organization who absolutely requires uptime, and then tell me how to make that happen while giving every employee full admin rights and allowing them to install, remove and configure at their whim.

Here's a hint: we were there seven years ago. It doesn't work.

 

Really. It's still used today, by DSM, for all of their workplaces. And they have about 15,000 of those worldwide. A few dozen people do all the day to day administration and managing as well.

And it's still used, because the competition doesn't offer something equal or better. And believe me, they tried. (Or better: Getronics tried. The company that is hired to manage it all.)


But I agree: I would do it quite different today. It has evolved from that, you know. But the basics are still very much the same.

And the reason I don't do that stuff anymore is not because it was a big fiasco, because it wasn't, but simply because I have another job nowadays.


Btw, "bill their bosses" didn't exist there either, until I proposed it as the best solution.

 

Ban? Its really the wrong word for what companies do. They simply don't upgrade and they're never going to let an employee upgrade on their own. Why would you upgrade without testing for all your applications? It takes time and that's why there are "bans" on Vista at this point. Seriously, this thread sounds like every Windows release in history so far...