PDA

View Full Version : Jack Messman says....another view on Vista



KingBahamut
September 12th, 2005, 04:13 PM
Jack Messman claims the tipping point for desktop Linux will come at the end of next year when companies are confronted by the cost of moving to Windows Vista

The high costs of migrating from Windows XP to Windows Vista will be the catalyst that encourages more companies to seriously consider moving to desktop Linux, according to open source and networking company Novell on Monday.........

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39217818,00.htm

earobinson
September 12th, 2005, 04:33 PM
have you seen the toobar it looks more and more like the gnome toolbar with a logoff btn beside the start btn

macgyver2
September 12th, 2005, 04:43 PM
One assumption that the article makes, however, is that businesses will definitely migrate...to anything. What if, once they see the costs involved, businesses just decide to stick with their current XP setups for awhile?

So yes, the costs of migrating to Vista might be greater than the costs of migrating to Linux...but both of those costs are greater than not migrating at all.

Lord Illidan
September 12th, 2005, 04:43 PM
I tend to agree and disagree.

I think that some people will remain with XP. Even now, almost 5 years since the release of XP, I know some people who run Win2k and 98. And they are happy with it, and don't want to change.

Though, yes, it could make people upgrade to linux, if they want to escape Vista. And honestly, I don't think Vista is good for productivity. Should I give an employee a mega gaming machine just to run Vista with Aero? So that he/she can download games from warez and play them when the boss is not looking? If I give the employee a slow machine, then Vista will run as slow as treacle, he can't play games, but he probably can't do anything else neither.

PatrickMay16
September 12th, 2005, 04:49 PM
I feel that windows gets more and more crapped up as time passes. Windows 2000 was the last version of windows that was actually fit for use. Windows XP was terrible, and from what I can see of Vista, things aren't getting any better.
Windows 2000 is the last version of Windows I'll ever use.

bob_c_b
September 12th, 2005, 04:53 PM
Jack Messman claims the tipping point for desktop Linux will come at the end of next year when companies are confronted by the cost of moving to Windows Vista

The high costs of migrating from Windows XP to Windows Vista will be the catalyst that encourages more companies to seriously consider moving to desktop Linux, according to open source and networking company Novell on Monday.........

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39217818,00.htm
Most of my customers are aware of my F/OSS advocacy and I have had meetings with several of them lately regarding Vista and their next server move. After showing them preliminary dollars they are warming up to Linux in a big way. It won't be a good fit for every company, but for many it might be a savior.

I have a lot of clients with 2-3ghz PIV machines and they aren't going to be willing to dump all that machine stock anytime soon.

KingBahamut
September 12th, 2005, 04:54 PM
One assumption that the article makes, however, is that businesses will definitely migrate...to anything. What if, once they see the costs involved, businesses just decide to stick with their current XP setups for awhile?

So yes, the costs of migrating to Vista might be greater than the costs of migrating to Linux...but both of those costs are greater than not migrating at all.

Mac the problem here is that Business doesnt work that way.

Migration teams are the nature of every business. Itll probably come down to a contract with whatever hardware vendor they use , Dell, HP, IBM, whoever.

That , and at what price that vendor will supply systems to them with.

So, migration is a constant process and a reality.

Itll just come down to how much money and at what level the corporation is willing to pay to preform the migration.

aysiu
September 12th, 2005, 04:58 PM
I think it's because of this (http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/evaluation/news/bulletins/extendedsupport.asp) that my company's finally switching from Windows 2000 to Windows XP. A lot of companies will not switch to Vista until they absolutely have to.

macgyver2
September 12th, 2005, 05:24 PM
Mac the problem here is that Business doesnt work that way.

Migration teams are the nature of every business. Itll probably come down to a contract with whatever hardware vendor they use , Dell, HP, IBM, whoever.

That , and at what price that vendor will supply systems to them with.

So, migration is a constant process and a reality.

Itll just come down to how much money and at what level the corporation is willing to pay to preform the migration.
I see...thanks for the education.

Deeze
September 12th, 2005, 06:10 PM
Mac the problem here is that Business doesnt work that way.

Migration teams are the nature of every business. Itll probably come down to a contract with whatever hardware vendor they use , Dell, HP, IBM, whoever.

That , and at what price that vendor will supply systems to them with.

So, migration is a constant process and a reality.

Itll just come down to how much money and at what level the corporation is willing to pay to preform the migration.

Actually businesses don't simply migrate to the newest thing when it comes out. I know this because I've seen and physically touched many network systems from GE, Lucent, Georgia Power, Mitsubishi, and many others having worked with a software var that provides systems for these corporations. I've seen systems still running NT4 and Win 3.1 well after XP was out. Microsofts biggest competitor is themself, because companies do not want to shell out to replace something that still works.

N8MAN1068
September 12th, 2005, 06:17 PM
What really stinks and make me irritated, is that my company just purchased a 2k3 SBS server, r1. Now, R2 is coming out at the end of the year, but to get that, we'd have to spend about $3k more to upgrade from OEM to Open License/Software Assurance.
Even then, MS will have a new server OS late next year as well based on Vista.
AND....they have another new server OS called 'centrino' or something like that aimed at Mid-sized companies.
Any company that rushes out to buy the latest and greatest from M$ should have their CTO sacked. Always wait a year.
BAH!


I had really really wanted to put a Suse Enterprise box in our network, but Novell couldnt really tell me how to handle authentication based Active Directory from our Win2k server box.

KingBahamut
September 12th, 2005, 06:23 PM
I was a member of the migration team at Siemens Corp here in Atlanta. We spent months and months doing nothing but preparing contingency plans for Migration from NT4 to 2000 , and ultimately XP. It was a handsomly paid job there was no question.

I suspect that most major corporations have such teams that they pay year round to consider these sorts of problems. I know for a fact that it took us a year and a half to migration fully from NT4 to 2000.

Am I denying that there are corps out there that still maintain sub par systems?

No way. Interland in Atlanta still hosts a number of its boxes on NT4. They wont migrate just out of sheer fear that it will cause problems. This is not entirely dissimilar to Delta here in Atlanta also. Delta just doesnt have the money to migrate their business to new OS. EOL on 2000, Price tag to migrate to Vista, etc etc etc, all affect whether businesses move their arches or not. TCO plays a bigger role in this than most think.

KingBahamut
September 12th, 2005, 06:26 PM
What really stinks and make me irritated, is that my company just purchased a 2k3 SBS server, r1. Now, R2 is coming out at the end of the year, but to get that, we'd have to spend about $3k more to upgrade from OEM to Open License/Software Assurance.
Even then, MS will have a new server OS late next year as well based on Vista.
AND....they have another new server OS called 'centrino' or something like that aimed at Mid-sized companies.
Any company that rushes out to buy the latest and greatest from M$ should have their CTO sacked. Always wait a year.
BAH!


I had really really wanted to put a Suse Enterprise box in our network, but Novell couldnt really tell me how to handle authentication based Active Directory from our Win2k server box.

I believe the next major release of Samba , Samba 4.0 handles this problem or is touted to.

http://download.mirror.ac.uk/sites/www.samba.org/devel/roadmap-4.0.html


What is Samba 4 meant to accomplish? In simplest terms, Samba 4 is an ambitious, yet achievable, reworking of the Samba code. Major features for Samba 4 already include:

* support of the 'Active Directory' logon and administration protocols
* new 'full coverage' testsuites
* full NTFS semantics for sharing backends
* Internal LDAP server, with AD semantics
* Internal Kerberos server, including PAC support
* fully asynchronous internals
* flexible process models
* better scalablilty from micro to very large installations
* new RPC infrastructure (PIDL)
* flexible database architecture (LDB)
* embedded scripting language (ejs)
* generic security subsystem (GENSEC)
* over 50% auto-generated code!

KingBahamut
September 12th, 2005, 06:32 PM
I think it's because of this (http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/evaluation/news/bulletins/extendedsupport.asp) that my company's finally switching from Windows 2000 to Windows XP. A lot of companies will not switch to Vista until they absolutely have to.

Asy if we follow this logic, then MS wont make any major quality amount of money. EOL on XP I believe is still slated for 2011. Thats a solid 5 years from now. If MS pushes release for 2007, thats 4 years of depending on consumer money to keep itself afloat. Based on the hardware requirements of Vista. I have to assume that computer hardware has to get cheaper or the MS Titanic is going to sink like a rock in water. That is if and only if MS is putting its bang for the buck into Vista and it being successful. I seriously doubt this fact, but call me a Pesimist in this regard.

bob_c_b
September 12th, 2005, 07:02 PM
Am I denying that there are corps out there that still maintain sub par systems?

I'm on a contract as we speak where half the in-house apps (of which there are many that are key to the business) are 16bit, they have been transitioning to 32bit for almost 4 years with no success. XP SP2 broke all the progress they had made and are back at the drawing board. Their app interface for the 32 bit upgrade has been Internet Explorer but every patch sends them backwards. Now part of this is ugly code and poor planning, and a big part is using closed source products and working around poorly documented APIs. I have made big headway this month getting them to consider going FireFox/Java for their in-house apps, as they have nothing to lose at this point by going back to the drawing board one more time. The devs are into the idea, the pointedy headed boss is waffling but the pressure is mounting to solve this issue.

This shop is almost wall to wall HP corporate desktop machines with PIV 2.4-2.8 that they just bought around the new year. The server room looks like a timeline of X86 history, but it works. I don't see these folks jumping off any cliffs for Vista any time soon and the thought that they could get out from under MS thumb has them talking. It's places like this that Linux is likely to get a foothold in the next few years. They have some scripted stuff running on an old Solaris box that I am going to try and migrate to a Linux box as proof of concept. Hopefully they will see they don't have to keep marching to MS drum considering virtually the entire business is built on custom apps anyway.

agger
September 12th, 2005, 07:17 PM
One assumption that the article makes, however, is that businesses will definitely migrate...to anything. What if, once they see the costs involved, businesses just decide to stick with their current XP setups for awhile?

So yes, the costs of migrating to Vista might be greater than the costs of migrating to Linux...but both of those costs are greater than not migrating at all.
Not necessarily:

The cost of not migrating may be *greater* if they'r plagued by viruses, Trojans and spyware. The security benefits of Linux are a great money saver.

KingBahamut
September 12th, 2005, 07:20 PM
Depends on what you want.

Most companies are concerned with stability. Goes to the rationale of , if its not broke dont fix it.

Of course in this case its more likely to something like -- If its not critically broken and saves us money in not migrating, then we shouldnt do it, but only if its not really really broken. If its half broken then we can leave it that way, but only if its half broke and not broken broken. I mean like really broken, not working broken.

=)

escuchamezz
September 13th, 2005, 12:12 AM
I feel that windows gets more and more crapped up as time passes.

so you're saying you prefer Windows 98 and ME to Windows 2000 and XP? :???:

blastus
September 13th, 2005, 12:42 AM
Any company that rushes out to buy the latest and greatest from M$ should have their CTO sacked.

I once worked for a company like that. 95% of the staff only used MS-Office, MS-Outlook, and Oracle Developer clients. When I left they were all using 2Ghz machines (having just upgraded from 1.5Ghz machines) but I'm sure by now they have all upgraded to 3Ghz machines.

They always had to be running the latest version of MS-Office and every other MS product out there. For them, it wasn't a choice, it was corporate policy to be running the latest hardware/software--REGARDLESS of whether they needed it or not. They do that because they don't really have to make any decisions about it and who knows what kind of contract they have with MS and the hardware vendors. They may very well have been strongarmed into contract by MS to continually upgrade. As soon as Windows Vista comes out, I'm sure they'll all be upgrading to it within 6 months. It's a total waste of money.