Actually, very few businesses are upgrading to Vista. Compatibility is the most important thing to them, not a few new features.
Maybe in Europe that is the case but as for places like India, Japan and the US they are upgrading. Most analysts told businesses not to buy Vista until 6 months to a year. They were surprised at how many businesses did not heed the warning they gave. The article was either on Cnet or PC World. And of course WSJ.
Then they are idiotic and will most likely pay for the mistake later. As a business, you stick with what works and never, ever upgrade immediately however good the new product is. Same way you never buy version 1.0 of anything.
very true I there are some companies that have people still running windows 98 and 2000 because they dont need anything more and it works great for them
If I have a new notebook, I will use Vista for sure. But now my notebook is quite slow, using XP is better.
I still use the good old fashioned windows 2000 lol verry old I know but it's fine and I have no problems ever.
If you can save down time and IT costs not to mention anti virus protection costs by upgrading what is idiotic about that?
You can't. What costs can you save? Anti-virus software is a minor cost compared to the hassles of incompatibility and upgrading thousands of systems. You just don't seem to understand that.
Yes you're right. But if you want to use Vista, probably you want to go for RAM of above 2GB. I have a laptop running Vista 1GB RAM...It's a bit slow. Thomas
Apparently you are not familiar with the fact that a lot of companies run networks and thus do not have to install software on individual systems. Also Microsoft offers volume licensing. I would advise you to read some business news cause apparently you do not seem to get the fact that most companies are not paying the $200+ to upgrade each system that home users pay.
Every man and his dog runs a network but that doesn't meant that they all auto-mirror each other. I know it can, and is, done but that would only work if the computer is connected to the network meaning that companies with mobile workers would find them of little use. I know that businesses don't pay what we pay, they pay "per seat" licenses in most cases which does, in fact mean, that it is even easier for them to use XP than us because they just use their old disks.
I am irritated with vista's decision steps. I dont understand why those questions keep popping up as "Are sure want to do this..." They say vista is fast but these stupid questions make our work slow ... they are big obstacles.
correction: I mean all those permission pop up windows saying "windows need your permission blah blah..."
Of course Steve Ballmer is ignoring the fact that a lot of people are not buying Vista because it does not offer much more than XP and Windows Genuine Advantage makes their lives a misery. Cranking up WGA might backfire. http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2007/02/19/ballmer-blames-pirates-for-poor-vista-sales
In any case it would be cheaper to upgrade if you are a company then an end user. Even with mobile networks companies get huge discounts. OF course to us it does not seem huge but if you are saving 50 dollars on each upgrade and you are upgrading 200 mobile computers.....
Yes, but the question is: Why upgrade? Why put yourself through the hassle, expense and inconvenience of incompatibilities when the old system worked just fine? That's not how companies work, as always it's: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
This is true in general most business wont switch to a new OS because they will use what they know works. I know some people still have windows 98 and 2000 in businesses because that is all they need.
Vista tends to cause problems setting up networks and is all around more complicated than the XP. XP already has a bunch of software that works for it. Also, it tooks a lot of the design from Apple and other OS. Its not that its bad, it just has a bit of bad eduiquite.