Does anybody else remember MS advertising campaigns of old that suggested that the diversity in the Unix and Linux operating systems from different vendors caused interoperability woes and increased the chances of you deploying the wrong solution.
I've been googling away but I can't find any linkage.
Anyway if this report is to believed http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050910-5298.html
It looks like there is going to be no less than 7 different flavours of Windows Vista (longhorn to those that haven't been keeping up) with not only different versions for home and business but different levels within those versions.
As someone who provides support to both business and private customers I can see this being a nightmare. To be honest it is hard enough remembering and explaining the differences between XP Pro and XP Home.
But in the future I'll have to remember the differences between Professional Edition, Small Business Edition and Enterprise edition for my business customers and Starter, Home basic and Home Premium Edition for my private clients. God forbid that anybody try to use the Business versions in the home or vice versa because it looks like unless they fork out for the Ultimate edition not one of the above has a full feature set.
Why can't it be the Apple way where there is a Server version and a Workstation version. Or better still Linux where any version can potentially be Server,Workstation Home or Business depending on what packages you have installed. There must be a way of MS getting their licensing model to work without resorting to so many versions of what essentially is the same product.
Wayne Stallwood wrote:
Does anybody else remember MS advertising campaigns of old that suggested that the diversity in the Unix and Linux operating systems from different vendors caused interoperability woes and increased the chances of you deploying the wrong solution.
I've been googling away but I can't find any linkage.
Anyway if this report is to believed http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050910-5298.html
It looks like there is going to be no less than 7 different flavours of Windows Vista (longhorn to those that haven't been keeping up) with not only different versions for home and business but different levels within those versions.
As someone who provides support to both business and private customers I can see this being a nightmare. To be honest it is hard enough remembering and explaining the differences between XP Pro and XP Home.
But in the future I'll have to remember the differences between Professional Edition, Small Business Edition and Enterprise edition for my business customers and Starter, Home basic and Home Premium Edition for my private clients. God forbid that anybody try to use the Business versions in the home or vice versa because it looks like unless they fork out for the Ultimate edition not one of the above has a full feature set.
Why can't it be the Apple way where there is a Server version and a Workstation version. Or better still Linux where any version can potentially be Server,Workstation Home or Business depending on what packages you have installed. There must be a way of MS getting their licensing model to work without resorting to so many versions of what essentially is the same product.
Hmm, I can't even persuade people upgrade to XP unless they are forced to. They frequently decide to hold off upgrading when they find out they can't take their OEM license onto the new hardware (assuming they don't look at you like some con merchant leaving you trying very hard to explain that you would be quite happy to install their Win98, but that it is the MS licensing that prevents it, not to mention that selling another copy of WinXP only increases your turnover and not your profit!).
So for large businesses selling Vista this will be easy. Dell will sell home targeted machines with Home Premium (maybe a few budget ones with Home Basic, but doubtful with their volume purchasing), and businesss targeted machines with Professional (and presumably the option to upgrade which will be aimed at volume purchasing from corporates and large SMEs mainly).
I'm going to assume that the business targeted versions won't be crippling the multimedia capabilities too much otherwise you won't be able to view streaming web content for business presentations and online seminar things.
So sales will be easy. Support will be a nightmare though. As someone who supports Windows (I wish I could afford not to) I currently still have to have access to Win95, Win98SE, WinNT4, Win2000 and WinXP Pro to investigate problems on (with occasionally requirements for WinME and WinXP Home). Now it seems I'll have to double that to account for odd differences between them!
Now on the basis that I do still use Windows as a desktop OS sometimes (mainly so as not to get too rusty with it, but increasingly less used - in fact my Windows box has been in pieces for the past month!) what version should I choose?
Starter - too crippled Home Basic and Home Premium - networking crippled Professional - multimedia/gaming crippled Small Business and Enterprise - I'm not going to have the Windows server infrastructure to use the extra facilities - not to mention the multimedia/gaming still being crippled
OK, so Ultimate then - well no, not if it is going to cost more than XP Pro OEM (that I currently use).
So the home based power user is going to use which version? I suspect this is going to either lead to increased interest in MacOS and Linux, increased instances of piracy or a complete lack of interest in upgrading. In fact I have customers who specifically requested not to have WinXP installed on their systems - they went for Win2000 instead because they didn't like XP.
Is the tide changing or is it wishful thinking?
On 9/14/05, Paul Tansom paul@aptanet.com wrote:
So the home based power user is going to use which version? I suspect this is going to either lead to increased interest in MacOS and Linux, increased instances of piracy or a complete lack of interest in upgrading. In fact I have customers who specifically requested not to have WinXP installed on their systems - they went for Win2000 instead because they didn't like XP.
I too didn't like XP, but since being introduced to it after sp2, I have found it similar enough to Win2000 once the theme was set back to the Win2000 theme. Of course, I wouldn't recommended upgrading or anything rash like that.
So far I have only experienced Vista beta1 in 4bit colour mode because the list of supported video cards is very short. Even the suggested minimum spec should put off most people from upgrading, and from past experience upgrading Windows is risky enough as it is.
apt-get upgrade && apt-get dist-upgrade Tim.
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 12:06 +0100, Paul Tansom wrote:
Hmm, I can't even persuade people upgrade to XP unless they are forced to. They frequently decide to hold off upgrading when they find out they can't take their OEM license onto the new hardware (assuming they don't look at you like some con merchant leaving you trying very hard to explain that you would be quite happy to install their Win98, but that it is the MS licensing that prevents it, not to mention that selling another copy of WinXP only increases your turnover and not your profit!).
Don't even get me started on OEM licensing. Of course there is no other way to sensibly buy a microsoft operating system because it is almost impossible to buy a brand name machine without a shiny new OEM license so therefore the ability to transfer the license between machines is worthless.
I'm going to assume that the business targeted versions won't be crippling the multimedia capabilities too much otherwise you won't be able to view streaming web content for business presentations and online seminar things.
I would think that the only functionality removed from the Business packages will probably be Media Centre style functionality that I fully expect to be integrated within the Home versions (or at least the premium home versions)
So the home based power user is going to use which version? I suspect this is going to either lead to increased interest in MacOS and Linux, increased instances of piracy or a complete lack of interest in upgrading.
Until game X won't work on anything other than Vista or there is a massive unpatched vulnerability in XP, or they have to buy a new machine that comes with Vista OEM pre-installed
One of the catches I would expect is that at least some of the versions will not be available under a corporate license, it's been the activation free corporate licenses that have been a thorn in the side of the Microsoft anti piracy campaign because once a product key is leaked or a keygen created they are a bit stuck. Certainly there will be no corporate licenses for any of the home versions (as per XP) but I wonder if ultimate will be the same ?
In fact I have customers who specifically requested not to have WinXP installed on their systems - they went for Win2000 instead because they didn't like XP.
Personally I am with Ted here, I prefer W2k but with XP set to classic the user interface is not brain dead enough for me to move to an operating system for which mainstream support ends pretty soon. Also the firewall and other security features of XP make it far better for some users. Also given enough memory XP is actually a bit faster on similar hardware.
Is the tide changing or is it wishful thinking?
I would love to think so but the whole OEM thing is so powerful that I just can't see it happening right now. Apple may have a chance to corner a bit more market share but people these days don't expect to install an operating system on a new machine.
Now if someone would make a serious attempt at Linux pre-install then we could go somewhere. But they would need to be a big player I feel or at least have enough cash in the bank to really push it. Novell could do it if they wanted to be a hardware company. Or how about IBM make a massive push for Linux on the desktop, in TV commercials. Even my Dad knows who IBM are and he hasn't touched a computer. Could a company like IBM saying it's cool convince the general public that it's at least worth trying ?
But I don't know any non technical user that has (by their own preference) installed Linux on a workstation, so why would they "risk" buying such a machine when they could have something they are perhaps more familiar with for almost the same price (thanks to OEM volume pricing)
Even when we have solved these problems there is still the issue of getting enough critical mass for commercial application support. My girlfriend keeps looking at my home machine in envy but each time she asks "does it run Autocad yet" I have to say no...at which point the option of her using it is blown away because Autocad is her career. She has a massive amount of time invested in knowing it inside out and uses bespoke extensions to do her job that are not available on any other CAD system.
I think the best we can hope for is that a few more people at least consider the alternatives, or at the very least a lot more people discover that those alternatives exist. There are still too many people that think Microsoft invented the Computer as we know it today, invented the Internet, invented Email.
I've seen improvement this year, I've had more clients ask me about "this linux thing" or if they could achieve the same goals with a Mac (to be fair more of the latter) than ever before. So maybe a change is happening but it's going to happen very slowly...I certainly wouldn't expect overnight mass adoption of Linux as soon as Vista is released (even if it does turn out to be a bit sucky)
Hi Wayne
On Wednesday 14 September 2005 23:57, Wayne Stallwood wrote:
Even when we have solved these problems there is still the issue of getting enough critical mass for commercial application support. My girlfriend keeps looking at my home machine in envy but each time she asks "does it run Autocad yet" I have to say no...at which point the option of her using it is blown away because Autocad is her career.
Whilst not an autocad clone, there is Synergy from webersys.com - A full 3D cad/cam package running on Linux. If it is just 2D work, there are alternatives, some good, some bad, and one or two barge pole grade packages that run under linux.
Regards, Paul.
On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 00:36 +0100, Paul wrote:
Whilst not an autocad clone, there is Synergy from webersys.com - A full 3D cad/cam package running on Linux. If it is just 2D work, there are alternatives, some good, some bad, and one or two barge pole grade packages that run under linux.
I have looked at Linux alternatives for other projects but at least for this particular client who is a power CAD user and has third party tools (some in house developed) as well as a GIS system that closely integrates with Autocad, the alternatives just wouldn't work in their current states. Not to mention any change in this tool would be risky as it is their primary source of revenue.
Now in an ideal world I could take their licensing costs and use that money to pay a developer to bring one of those projects up to standard. But that is something that would take a while to pay off in a usable product and it is a risk that I would probably never convince them to take because it's a risk they don't NEED to take.
Not forgetting the fact that their new staff intake (as well as their existing staff) are already very familiar with the Autodesk product and any functional differences could lead to reduced productivity initially so the end game would have to be something akin to what OpenOffice is to MS Office...not a small task.
Wayne Stallwood wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 12:06 +0100, Paul Tansom wrote:
Hmm, I can't even persuade people upgrade to XP unless they are forced to. They frequently decide to hold off upgrading when they find out they can't take their OEM license onto the new hardware (assuming they don't look at you like some con merchant leaving you trying very hard to explain that you would be quite happy to install their Win98, but that it is the MS licensing that prevents it, not to mention that selling another copy of WinXP only increases your turnover and not your profit!).
Don't even get me started on OEM licensing. Of course there is no other way to sensibly buy a microsoft operating system because it is almost impossible to buy a brand name machine without a shiny new OEM license so therefore the ability to transfer the license between machines is worthless.
It does if you're buying branded, but if you're building to order like I do when required the OEM license isn't such a non-issue cost wise (although clearly still cheaper than a full retail one by a long margin).
<snip>
In fact I have customers who specifically requested not to have WinXP installed on their systems - they went for Win2000 instead because they didn't like XP.
Personally I am with Ted here, I prefer W2k but with XP set to classic the user interface is not brain dead enough for me to move to an operating system for which mainstream support ends pretty soon. Also the firewall and other security features of XP make it far better for some users. Also given enough memory XP is actually a bit faster on similar hardware.
Well this is going back a year or so, but I have to say that I always switch the Windows firewall off when I install. I'm always sitting behind a Linux firewall, but I tend to switch to a better alternative - usually F-Secure, but when forced to it will be Norton (although I don't let Norton anywhere near my own systems).
<snip>
Even when we have solved these problems there is still the issue of getting enough critical mass for commercial application support. My girlfriend keeps looking at my home machine in envy but each time she asks "does it run Autocad yet" I have to say no...at which point the option of her using it is blown away because Autocad is her career. She has a massive amount of time invested in knowing it inside out and uses bespoke extensions to do her job that are not available on any other CAD system.
I know this one. I have a number of customers using Autocad. There are still a few restricting applications, but thankfully for the majority these aren't an issue. Sadly for the majority the pre-install and 'its not MS Windows' and 'its not MS Office' are the issue :(
-
Paul -
Paul Tansom -
Tim Green -
Wayne Stallwood