Intel, Dell Hold Off On Internal Rollout Of Vista

[Guest Reimar]

Speaking to ZDNet UK at a Dell event in Paris on Thursday, Intel Europe's director of IT, Martin Mueller, said that the company's Vista deployment would commence in the second half of 2007, once Centrino Pro computers--incorporating the next-generation Santa Rosa platform--have become widely available.

Vista seems to be much more unsafe as Microsft let the public know! If companies like Intel and Dell refusing to change to a new OS than the qustion came up: "WHY?"

How much is really wrong with the security of Microsoft Windows Vista?

Read the articel below:

Intel will roll out Vista internally only once the first service pack of the operating system has been released, and Dell is likely to do the same

"Centrino Pro is a far more capable platform (than the previous version of Centrino) based on the performance delivered by the Centrino core," Mueller said. "We will use it as our standard platform for rolling out Vista and Office 2007. We saw Santa Rosa and Vista coming along in roughly synchronized time, which led us to be a little slow on replacements (of computers within Intel) in the last few months."

More than 80 percent of Intel's employees use notebook computers. Mueller said that Service Pack 1 (SP1) of Vista would be "tied to the (Centrino Pro) platform" within Intel's internal IT plan, but he suggested that Intel had delayed its Vista rollout in any case, in order to "make sure that all our internal applications operate with Office 2007 and Vista."

He added that, while Intel's IT department often acts as a beta test site for the company's own products, it is nonetheless sometimes behind other companies in deploying the latest commercially available technology, due to the IT "rationality" of being a large company.

Dell has also not yet rolled out Vista internally, although its director of client marketing for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, Eric Greffier, said it is "very close" to doing so. "We are pretty much in the same position as Intel within Dell," he said Thursday. "We knew we would roll out Vista internally faster than any other OS (but) if we are at the SP1 level it is going to be safer."

[solo siam]

Think its got more to do with drivers than anything else to be honest, Vista is good, very good in fact - It just has very poor driver support at the moment, as do all operating systems in the early days.

[think_too_mut]

OK, Intel and DELL might be obliged in some way to roll out Vista.

For most corporate IT shops, Vista will NEVER be rolled out and Microsoft won't be able to cease support for Server 2003 and XP Pro for 10 years from now, at least. If anyone still needs them by then.

World leading companies are just switching from Win2000 to XP Pro for their staff PCs and laptops. W2K will be on PCs for at least another 3 years (3 years is time to replace the hardware, yesterday built PCs would still have W2K on them).

Actually, Vista could easily be the very last big product by Microsoft. Corporations are watching what world'd best managed company, General Electric, is doing with Google : corporate PCs are being tuned to connect to Google at boot and use productiviy applicaltions and storage from there.

If that goes well, Micorsoft is dead like Novell. Well, may remain known among gamers, like Atari today - if the gaming industry sits still.

Or MS might merge (absorb) Yahoo and counter attack with providing operating environment at the central site, no OS, no Vista, no shits, nothing, on the local PCs

[cdnvic]

Dell is also going to begin shipping PCs with Ubuntu now. I have a sneaking feeling that things are quite so cozy between MS and Dell as they have been for so many years.

[sjaak327]

Not shocking, mayor companies are always reluctant and slow to implement new Operating systems, in fact if Intel and dell are going for the second half of this year, they are fast indeed.

[naka]

Actually, Vista could easily be the very last big product by Microsoft. Corporations are watching what world'd best managed company, General Electric, is doing with Google : corporate PCs are being tuned to connect to Google at boot and use productiviy applicaltions and storage from there.

But you need high speed internet for that ... right ?

Guess Microsoft will live on in Thailand then.

Just going for a nap luv ... gimme a call when the computer is booted.

Naka.

[think_too_mut]

Actually, Vista could easily be the very last big product by Microsoft. Corporations are watching what world'd best managed company, General Electric, is doing with Google : corporate PCs are being tuned to connect to Google at boot and use productiviy applicaltions and storage from there.

But you need high speed internet for that ... right ?

Guess Microsoft will live on in Thailand then.

Just going for a nap luv ... gimme a call when the computer is booted.

Naka.

Won't be a big problem - boot won't need much - if anything - other than connecting to the network.

Pretty much what mobile phones do when you switch them on - just find and connect to the nearest relay.

New ones also start a thing or two - device driver for the inbuilt camera or whatever is in there, but that's nothing compared to what PCs do.

[Phil Conners]

Why? Never use anything less than version 3 of anything that comes out of Redmond. Bugs galore.

[naka]

Why? Never use anything less than version 3 of anything that comes out of Redmond. Bugs galore.

They seem to make an awful lot of money for such a dumbass company though.

But really, it is the only choice, other than (expensive) Apple.

Other OS's are only for people without a life ... or a wife/family/girlfriend.

Naka.

[cdnvic]

Other OS's are only for people without a life ... or a wife/family/girlfriend.

Naka.

Wife, family, job, 3 OS's

[solo siam]

OK, Intel and DELL might be obliged in some way to roll out Vista.

For most corporate IT shops, Vista will NEVER be rolled out and Microsoft won't be able to cease support for Server 2003 and XP Pro for 10 years from now, at least. If anyone still needs them by then.

World leading companies are just switching from Win2000 to XP Pro for their staff PCs and laptops. W2K will be on PCs for at least another 3 years (3 years is time to replace the hardware, yesterday built PCs would still have W2K on them).

Actually, Vista could easily be the very last big product by Microsoft. Corporations are watching what world'd best managed company, General Electric, is doing with Google : corporate PCs are being tuned to connect to Google at boot and use productiviy applicaltions and storage from there.

If that goes well, Micorsoft is dead like Novell. Well, may remain known among gamers, like Atari today - if the gaming industry sits still.

Or MS might merge (absorb) Yahoo and counter attack with providing operating environment at the central site, no OS, no Vista, no shits, nothing, on the local PCs

What exactly do you think the benefits of web productivity are?

Security? Nope

Speed? Nope

Uptime? Nope

Using Web software is great for collaberative tasks but why bother keeping a word document there, or pictures of your family? Imagine having to download the same file 1,000 times, just doesn't make sense to me, haven't they already tried thin computing.

I think that the security features in Vista, and the managed services will mean that its actually rolled out sooner than you think.

[Guest Reimar]

Other OS's are only for people without a life ... or a wife/family/girlfriend.

Naka.

Wife, family, job, 3 OS's

Why just 3 OS's?

Mac OS, MS Windows, a lot different Linux OS's and not to forget UNIX running on PC as Emulation!

[think_too_mut]

OK, Intel and DELL might be obliged in some way to roll out Vista.

For most corporate IT shops, Vista will NEVER be rolled out and Microsoft won't be able to cease support for Server 2003 and XP Pro for 10 years from now, at least. If anyone still needs them by then.

World leading companies are just switching from Win2000 to XP Pro for their staff PCs and laptops. W2K will be on PCs for at least another 3 years (3 years is time to replace the hardware, yesterday built PCs would still have W2K on them).

Actually, Vista could easily be the very last big product by Microsoft. Corporations are watching what world'd best managed company, General Electric, is doing with Google : corporate PCs are being tuned to connect to Google at boot and use productiviy applicaltions and storage from there.

If that goes well, Micorsoft is dead like Novell. Well, may remain known among gamers, like Atari today - if the gaming industry sits still.

Or MS might merge (absorb) Yahoo and counter attack with providing operating environment at the central site, no OS, no Vista, no shits, nothing, on the local PCs

What exactly do you think the benefits of web productivity are?

Security? Nope

Speed? Nope

Uptime? Nope

Using Web software is great for collaberative tasks but why bother keeping a word document there, or pictures of your family? Imagine having to download the same file 1,000 times, just doesn't make sense to me, haven't they already tried thin computing.

I think that the security features in Vista, and the managed services will mean that its actually rolled out sooner than you think.

Just imagine if a company has outsourced their email to Yahoo.

Security? Unparalleled.

Speed? Companies have good networks, there is no problem with speed.

Uptime? Millions and millions of people test Yahoo's uptime every second of any day and night.

And, why would companies give their employees OS and PCs that are expensive and do nothing for their work? To enable them to play games? Store private photos and videos?

I witnessed in a meeting when the Commonwealth Bank of Australia requested Microsoft to cut a special release of Win 3.11 without solitaire, other games and many other functions. They were paying 35,000 licenses for their PCs to MS. They would never ever accept Vista for it's greatness in a non-productive use.

[solo siam]

Just imagine if a company has outsourced their email to Yahoo.

Security? Unparalleled.

Speed? Companies have good networks, there is no problem with speed.

Uptime? Millions and millions of people test Yahoo's uptime every second of any day and night.

And, why would companies give their employees OS and PCs that are expensive and do nothing for their work? To enable them to play games? Store private photos and videos?

I witnessed in a meeting when the Commonwealth Bank of Australia requested Microsoft to cut a special release of Win 3.11 without solitaire, other games and many other functions. They were paying 35,000 licenses for their PCs to MS. They would never ever accept Vista for it's greatness in a non-productive use.

So you are saying that a system where all data and information is uploaded over the internet is unparalleled in security? How can it be more secure than having that data on a PC NOT connected to the internet.

Speed, are you trying to tell me its as quick to open a 50mb file over the internet as from your hard disk?

Uptime - A PC is up as long as there is power, you are forgetting that in your scenario you don't just rely on your power uptime, your pc uptime, your ISP uptime etc... the last link in the chain is the yahoo uptime, so its insignificant to state that Yahoo has great uptime.

How is stating that 35,000 licenses sold to one company by Microsoft proving that Microsofts O/S will never sell, why can't they just cut similar functions from Vista?

Besides, you are arguing two faces of the same coin, if they don't want ANY extras on their PC's then how could they let staff use the internet, where they can download anything they want? If they don't have the internet, how could they use web applications?

[think_too_mut]

Just imagine if a company has outsourced their email to Yahoo.

Security? Unparalleled.

Speed? Companies have good networks, there is no problem with speed.

Uptime? Millions and millions of people test Yahoo's uptime every second of any day and night.

And, why would companies give their employees OS and PCs that are expensive and do nothing for their work? To enable them to play games? Store private photos and videos?

I witnessed in a meeting when the Commonwealth Bank of Australia requested Microsoft to cut a special release of Win 3.11 without solitaire, other games and many other functions. They were paying 35,000 licenses for their PCs to MS. They would never ever accept Vista for it's greatness in a non-productive use.

So you are saying that a system where all data and information is uploaded over the internet is unparalleled in security? How can it be more secure than having that data on a PC NOT connected to the internet.

Speed, are you trying to tell me its as quick to open a 50mb file over the internet as from your hard disk?

Uptime - A PC is up as long as there is power, you are forgetting that in your scenario you don't just rely on your power uptime, your pc uptime, your ISP uptime etc... the last link in the chain is the yahoo uptime, so its insignificant to state that Yahoo has great uptime.

How is stating that 35,000 licenses sold to one company by Microsoft proving that Microsofts O/S will never sell, why can't they just cut similar functions from Vista?

Besides, you are arguing two faces of the same coin, if they don't want ANY extras on their PC's then how could they let staff use the internet, where they can download anything they want? If they don't have the internet, how could they use web applications?

PC not connected to the net? What company does that?

If not at work, the ISP would just let you connect to whatever you want. Your company, for example.

Paying many licensing fees means - a barganing power. Give us what is crucial for our business, not for fun. Here I just wanted to illustrate corporate mindset.

Downloading "anything they want" is a sackable offence within many companies. I can't have my private digital camera software (that came with the cam) on my work PC. Corporate IS snoops all the PCs and sends a report to managers about what their employees have (OK, firstl they send you a mail where they tell you to remove it).

AOL IM, Yahoo chat, MSN..are allowed as they are heavilly used (but not supported, if something goes wrong, don't call anyone).

[cdnvic]

Other OS's are only for people without a life ... or a wife/family/girlfriend.

Naka.

Wife, family, job, 3 OS's

Why just 3 OS's?

Mac OS, MS Windows, a lot different Linux OS's and not to forget UNIX running on PC as Emulation!

Windows, Ubuntu, FreeBSD.

Haven't owned an Apple since the 80s.

[Guest Reimar]

Other OS's are only for people without a life ... or a wife/family/girlfriend.

Naka.

Wife, family, job, 3 OS's

Why just 3 OS's?

Mac OS, MS Windows, a lot different Linux OS's and not to forget UNIX running on PC as Emulation!

Windows, Ubuntu, FreeBSD.

Haven't owned an Apple since the 80s.

Hi Vic

Ubuntu works very well! Windows? na ja! FreeBSD? never worked with but may I'll give a try!

But I'm wonder that someone use Unix on an PC for Web Hosting! That's not understandable for me! What's your meaning about this?

[cdnvic]

I use unix exclusively for web hosting. Both FreeBSD and Fedora Linux. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

FreeBSD has to be the least resource hungry and most robust free Unix based OS out there.

You can use it on the desktop but it's a bit of a pain sometimes.

[Guest Reimar]

I use unix exclusively for web hosting. Both FreeBSD and Fedora Linux. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

FreeBSD has to be the least resource hungry and most robust free Unix based OS out there.

You can use it on the desktop but it's a bit of a pain sometimes.

Linux isn't Unix, isn't it?

Take a look at the pic, there's an error to your name.

[cdnvic]

Linux isn't Unix, isn't it?

It's a variant of Unix as is FreeBSD, Mac osX, BSD, Solaris, etc

Take a look at the pic, there's an error to your name.

Buggy forum

[calibanjr.]

I use unix exclusively for web hosting. Both FreeBSD and Fedora Linux. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

FreeBSD has to be the least resource hungry and most robust free Unix based OS out there.

You can use it on the desktop but it's a bit of a pain sometimes.

I always assumed the MAJORITY of sites were hosted on unix/linux systems. Is that incorrect?

[cdnvic]

I use unix exclusively for web hosting. Both FreeBSD and Fedora Linux. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

FreeBSD has to be the least resource hungry and most robust free Unix based OS out there.

You can use it on the desktop but it's a bit of a pain sometimes.

I always assumed the MAJORITY of sites were hosted on unix/linux systems. Is that incorrect?

By far, although Microsoft is catching up somewhat, they still have a long way to go. There are far more scripts and web apps available for unix derivatives than for Windows.