Just picked up on this very interesting thread/message from:
sci.electronics.design

Cheers Don...

================================================== ====

Intel rejects Vista, will stay with XP and wait for windows7

The source?
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...el-dumps-vista

The nytimes:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/0...q=intel&st=nyt

In German heise:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Intel...meldung/110022

Hey, The Inquirer mentioned Linux!


--
Don McKenzie

Site Map: http://www.dontronics.com/sitemap
E-Mail Contact Page: http://www.dontronics.com/email

Xbee Wireless Modules, and low cost Interface Boards.
http://www.dontronics-shop.com/xbee-boards.html

Don McKenzie wrote:
Maybe Intel should help the ReactOS project along (the Open source XP
replacement)

http://www.reactos.org/

....or follow the current leaders supporting more mature projects:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Asus+Linux
http://www.google.com/search?q=Picasa+Google.paid+Wine
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:...title:Wine-1.0

Don McKenzie wrote:

If you remember, pretty much exactly the same thing happened:

- when Windows 95 replaced WFWG 3.11/MS-DOS 6.22 (but Intel eventually
upgraded)
- when Windows XP replaced Windows 2000 (but Intel eventually
upgraded)

The real issue is how long mfrs continue to ship WinXP drivers for new
hardware. IT departments don't like to support multiple OSes, they
enjoy standardization. The last of the Win2000 machines are (by and
large) replaced with XP machines now, so most of the PCs in the
corporate world are standardized. Any Vista machines added to that mix
are shunned aliens at the moment, but that will likely not last. My
employer, like most, has a "universal" license where they tell MS how
many PCs they have, and they can install whatever flavor of Windows
they choose on each of those PCs, and certain components of MS-Office,
and various other software.

larwe wrote:
I went straight from DOS to NT, then XP. No Vista. Similar for some
companies here.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.

In article <4dbf3da5-5826-4051-a48b-
31c8d46e0f53@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, zwsdotcom@gmail.com says...
I would not be so sure, there are plenty of apps still running on systems
older than that!

I know that only 2-3 years ago a bank upgraded servers from NT4 to 2003
server ONLY because they held reached the SAM based limits for
authentication (64k users).

I still go to places that are running all sorts of flavours of systems
and often see retail outlets with older systems than XP with DOS boxes
or special apps running.

I dread to think what the bill for the NHS in the UK would be as when XP
was only out a year or two they were upgrading to Windows 98. Bear in
mind the National Health Service is one of the largest employers in the
UK, in excess of 500,000 staff and contractors on site, a large portion
of which access computerised systems regularly.

Only about 3 months ago I saw my last customer Windows 95 being retired!

I have 1 customer running ME, only about 5 are running Vista on any
system, and that is usually a new laptop or single system.

For maintaining old projects I still have machines running NT4 and
WFW3.11 !

--
Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate

On Jun 26, 9:40*pm, Paul Carpenter <p...@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk>
wrote:

Certainly. People in this NG in particular will have numerous stories
of "the exception testing the rule". However for the bulk-purchased
office productivity machines (running MS-Office and little else) which
make up the lion's share of installs in a big organization like Intel,
the upgrade is centrally managed by IT, and IT won't standardize on
Vista until it's less effort than continuing to support XP. However,
once that day arrives, they /will/ upgrade.

For the moment, it's obvious that a Vista "upgrade" has nothing but
downsides even for people buying brand-new machines. At some point in
the future, possibly before the release of Windows 7, that might no
longer be true.

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:46:50 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:

I went from (asm and basic z80 etc excluded )
Dos -> Winows 3.11 -> OS2 -> Win 95 -> NT4 -> Linux (redhat) -> XP ->
Vista.

Being in enterprise, the XP era was also server Win2000 and 2003. I am
yet to use Win 2008.


I now use XP, Vista and linux. Which one depends on which client i am
working for which depends on which client pays the most. Currently it
is XP/2003 and has been for some time.

In article <3ddc69c4-6bbe-4d24-adb0-
f090c51752bf@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, zwsdotcom@gmail.com says...
The trouble is most senior managment view on computers in larger
organisations is the computers are just beige boxes and ALL beige boxes
are the same no matter how OLD. One manager said "These old systems
[Win 95] would run faster if we just installed the Win 2000 onto them".

Most IT departments I deal with (50 to 1000 machines[1]), actually run
planned upgrades and system images/build schemes (some even run thin
client some of those wrongly). The assets are managed so that each
machine is scheduled to be replaced somewhere between 3 to 5 years,
(some mainly govt installations tend to have longer or no replacement
poloicy), any new OS or major app has to be tested for

Interoperability with EXISTING applications
What applications/drivers/special hardware requirements
What lock downs and restrictions can be done, how, if at all.
Will it work in mixed version deployment
Will it integrate with ALL servers and network wide applications.
Can their existing system image/build/upgrade scheme still work.
Do we have remote office/links to deal with
What training requirements will there be.

As soon as you look at more than 100 systems, you generally have an IT
department that is somewhere around 1 IT staff member for at least 50
systems. Then you hit the issues of what can PHYSICALLY be done in moving
and installing hardware, then how long will it take to do the system
image rebuild for the systems (normally done over a network). Let alone
can all locations be updated at same time.

These upgrades are scheduled usually for nights/weekends to minimise
downtime, which brings time constraints as well. This then becomes
a transition phase of upgrading groups of systems at a time. Which is
also good practice to see what loading on deployment, normal usage,
even startup logon, authentication there is.

Interoperability especially during transition phases is the biggest pain
(especially on MS-Office apps being able to save as OLDER version by
default like Access nightmares).

Transition phases can sometimes be as long as 6 months depending on many
factors.

[1] In one case the IT department was run by my partner for a 250 machine
network (plus 6 servers) for a school with limited budgets, with
major differences of major groups and subnetworks of

students (potentially 100+ logon/logoff very fast every 45 minutes)
teachers
admin
fund raising and similar activities

Multiple school wide databases and similar apps.

Well familiar with their systems, as I was often involved in fixing
weird problems and setting up (and wiring up) anything up to 50
systems for new rooms/facilities.

--
Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/> PC Services
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/fonts/> Timing Diagram Font
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/> GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/> For those web sites you hate

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 23:16:16 -0700 (PDT), larwe <zwsdotcom@gmail.com>
wrote:

For a large enterprise, is there any need to upgrade to vista? Given
most enterprises are on a 3year+ refresh cycle, i think you will find
that only now are they starting to considering the upgrade. Same thing
occured with Win XP.

"The Real Andy" <therealandy@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:h8f9645c8rdql0vbm8j2bdfo9oe79v4oiq@4ax.com...
Business Week reported the same about General Motors a month or two ago. GM
refused to upgrade partly because too many of their machines wouldn't
support Vista. They also are waiting for Win7.

Scott

In article <6ckgf0F3fvqpsU1@mid.individual.net>,
scott@validatedQWERTYsoftware.XYZZY.com says...
"waiting for Win7" Will Win7 run on the machines that are currently
underpowered for Vista?

I think not. I'd speculate that since Vista requires a machine with 5
times the guts of an "XP-class machine" to run, Win7 would then need a
machine with 5 times the guts of a "Vista-class machine".

(Meanwhile my Ubuntu box runs really well on a Win2000-class machine.)

In comp.arch.embedded Uniden <uniden@nospam.net> wrote:
It's MS policy, or at least has been for the last decade to add as many
features as possible rather than make what is there work or the current
features work faster with lower resource requirements.

One thing to note is that power consumption is directly related to resource
useage, as people become far more concious of how much power their computers
are using and that power costs more MS (and Intel for that matter) are going
to have to change or die.

-p
--
"Unix is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are."
- Anonymous
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Uniden wrote:
It seems unlikely that Win7 will need significantly more than Vista does
- I don't even MS will try to use physics engines or ray-tracing on the
desktop. And Vista is happy with pretty much any modern processor
(except for the extreme portable ones) and 1 GB of ram - almost any new
PC should fast enough, at least without Aero. The trouble with Vista's
hardware requirements is that they are too demanding for a cheap machine
a few years old - you can't sensibly "upgrade" an average XP machine to
Vista. But in a couple of years time, when Win7 turns up, common
business replace strategies will have replaced these older PC's with
systems that are fine for Vista (to the extent that Vista could ever be
called "fine" - but we are just looking at the hardware here) and should
be fine for Win7.

Of course, it remains to be seen whether MS will make the same kind of
absurd mistakes with Win7 as with Vista regarding incompatibility with
hardware, software, drivers, and users. Vista is a great boost for the
Mac and desktop *nix, but the big buyers are conservative enough to say
"we'll skip Vista, and wait for Win7". If Win7 is not worth waiting
for, they won't be so forgiving a second time.

David Brown wrote:

Businesses also look at this: "What does a new OS have that we
absolutely must have, too?" Unavailability of drivers won't be a
challenge for a long time. If a vendor won't issue an XP driver you just
move on to the next vendor who does.

--
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.