Re: Why would a Home User buy more than Vista Basic?

the wrote:
Charlie Tame wrote:

What's that called? Is it called Cost Justification, Return on Investment and Cost to Operate? Businesses have heavy investment in the technology that's in place, and they are just not going to jump ship to something else on a whim when there is no justification to do so.


Nobody is asking them to, but there are many companies that could replace almost every XP machine with either a thin clients or a Linux machine.

There business solutions sitting out on a Citrix Windows based or Windows server based terminal server farm such as office solutions and other business solutions that are not run on a workstation reside with client based workstations accessing the farm currently, thin clients.

You have no clue about what's happening with .Net technology and what's taking place in the business sector with the technology. No, they are not going to do any of the sort what you are talking about with Linux.

Yes they will have thin client business based solutions as they currently do with Com, Com+ and .Net technology business developed solutions that run on the MS platform.

They are also coming back to the fat client in order to use the power of the desktop workstation and new equipment technology a wasted commodity in this area with .Net Windows Communication Foundation and other such technology that allow processing of business transactions to be done at the workstation. And the workstation in communications with a SOA portal Web server over HTTP or application server by means of Named Pipe, MSMQ or TCP with client side WCF solution and WCF server side application at the desktop in an N-tier architect solution, which I have worked on in the development of such business solutions.


So why would they jump ship and buy all new hardware for Vista?

Return of Investment, capital expenditures, tax write off such as dumping old equipment and keeping with state of the art technology. They will buy new equipment and swap out old equipment because of the advancement of technology, and they are going to do if Vista is involved or not. It's the cost to operate.


And with emerging technology for the MS platform such as .Net's WCF, MPF, Workflow, MVP etc, etc, now many 3rd party software language vendors and 3rd party solution venders tapping into .Net technology, businesses are not running to another platform for workstation or servers.

The posters making the most noise here on the opposite side of the coin, really don't see what's happening or how things work. People in businesses that are in a position to make such decisions don't shoot from the hip. They just don't shoot from the hip, and they will keep the status quo.


Status Quo is XP as far as many companies are concerned. Changing to Vista is the same "Shooting from the hip" scenario as changing to another OS.

The status Quo is MS and Windows period. Some will progress to Vista, some will remain on XP and some will move on to Windows 7, just like they came from Win 9'x to Win 2k workstation and server, to Win XP and Win 2k3 server, now to Vista workstation and Win 2k8 server.

They will not be jumping to Linux. Businesses have too much invested in MS technology, such as new in-house and 3rd party programming business based solutions based on .Net technology and old legacy applications using Com and Com+ technology on the MS platform that run the company's day to day business.

The company has staff that has been trained on the MS technology, whether that be an IT or office staff that has been trained on MS technology. The company's IT culture is MS technology based.

Companies with business leaders such as president, vice presidents, CIO, IT director and other senior level management must be shown justification for change, return on investment, cost to operate, etc, etc. And what they will do is move forward on the same platform, but they will not move over to another platform, because it's too costly to do so, and they don't shoot from the hip.

They keep the status quo. What you're talking about is a wild move and those people who have gotten to that station in their careers don't make wild moves. How do you think he or she has gotten to their positions? By making unjustifiable wild moves?



And Linux and Apache continue to loose Web server market share.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2008/06/22/june_2008_web_server_survey.html


Look, I got nothing against Linux, which helps bring down cost for the home user and business sectors. But MS is certainly not on some kind of doom and gloom path nor are Linux systems the wave of the future that the evangelist in the NG make it out to be.

The various Linux are becoming an increasingly viable alternative.

But only a very few are going to the platform, because of the reasons stated above, if they are already on the MS platform.

That's the problem with Linux, it has too many versions, and it has spun out of control.

I don't see it happening as Linux stays at the 1% market level. I have talked with IT staff as a consultant that are moving to Vista. I have also talked with others that wait like they usually do for the first SP to settle down for an Windows O/S release before they make the move, just like they have done in the past.


However, Linux is free and it still can't make a dent, not really.


The risk is not that Linux will make the dent, the risk is that Microsoft will do it themselves.

Well, it's not going to happen, and you'll be dust in your grave when and if it ever does.

MS has three things going for it. It has an O/S no matter what you think about it, it has .Net technology that is an ISO and ECMA standard no matter what you think about it, and it's top dog no matter what you think about it.


The Titanic was also unsinkable...

I have Vista on 2 very capable machines, on one not quite so capable (circa 2000 but upgraded as far it is practical to go) and Linux on a third which is also very capable.

I was surprised to get the older machine running as well as it does, but for most people / companies such an upgrade path would not make sense - the labor would cost as much as buying new.

So when W7 comes out will I have to buy all new again? That means it would make sense for me to hold off and continue with XP doesn't it?

Every one of the "Technologies" that you described seems to have brought with it a whole range of new vulnerabilities. If people are going to wait for "SP1" for everything, as you stated above, that does not do much for Microsoft's bottom line now.

The waiting game people play is largely due to experiences of the past, maybe all the bells and whistles are less practical than a simpler system?

If your staff are going to have to learn a whole new GUI then in cost terms staying with XP is sensible. Vista, in terms of users doing their own settings etc is as far away from XP as most Linux are. Would have thought the Vista "Classic" mode could have looked more like XP with things in roughly the same places.

I am not trying to bash MS by the way, simply saying that they seem to have thrown a number of obstacles in their own path. I definitely do not "Hate" MS, rather I'd prefer to see them get their act together and get things like Explorer faultless, produce a "Business" edition that can be delivered "Locked down" instead of UAC and produce either a secure update system that does not use IE or produce an indestructible version of IE for such a purpose.

UAC is only useful if not combined with a user who says "Yes" to everything anyway.

Dealing with Malware is a corporate headache, one that is far less time consuming with Linux.

.