RSSIntel isn't saying 'no' or 'yes' to Vista completely
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published June 26, 2008, 1:17 PM
There may not ever be a planned, collective migration of Intel's company clients to Windows Vista. But as Intel told BetaNews today, there doesn't have to be, since IT can make upgrade decisions on a case-by-case basis.
In response this afternoon to an enthusiast news site report last Monday that re-ignited an old rumor that Intel had decided it would be corporate policy not to deploy Windows Vista on its internal company network-linked systems, and that it might even consider a wholesale move to Linux, an Intel spokesperson gave BetaNews a more practical explanation. Rather than move everybody in its various departments from Windows XP or Windows 2000 to Vista in a massive exodus, the company reiterated what it has told us before: It deploys different versions of Windows based on specific user needs.
"Windows is, and will be, by far the dominant OS for the bulk of Intel's 80,000+ employees," Intel corporate communications manager Bill Calder told BetaNews. "We are testing and deploying Windows Vista in certain departments. Intel IT is constantly refreshing employee desktops and laptops and there are a number of factors considered before choosing the type of software for the computer."
So there are Windows XP users throughout Intel, and it would appear there will continue to be Windows XP users, based on thorough assessments and probably based on employee preference. But Windows Server 2008 does enable departments to make this choice; it does not perceive Vista as a "necessary upgrade" for XP, and besides Microsoft's ongoing marketing efforts, there is nothing technologically that forces clients to use Vista for fundamental Windows services.
That said, some employees are probably, justifiably questioning the need to move to Vista, and may consider themselves quite comfortable with their current systems. In that light, it would seem unreasonable to consider a mass transition to a new client or server operating system -- easily an investment of tens of millions, at the very least, for a company of Intel's size and IT stature.
Windows Vista = Windows ME? hmm I'm fine with XP it has been stable for me, why load an OS that uses more resources? WTF can Vista do for me?
I beginging to think I'll never pay for a copy of windows again, I have 3 or 4 licensed copies of XP 1 purchased, 1 found in the garage of a house I bought, 1 with a free computer off craigslist, not to mention the restore disks that come with computers I own that won't be outdated for another 5 years (and are already 2 years old)
Microsoft better figure out search, Intel better not rely on Microsoft desktops/laptops reached their necessary performance peak for 95% of mainstream users 3 years ago
Score: 0
|Another troll article that has no purpose except to get flame war started all over again.
Companies will update to the OS when the benefit out weight the risk/cost. The company I used to work didn't upgrade to XP until end of 2006.
Score: 0
|Bingo, although this one didn't have the bias from the writer. Always a good sign...
Score: 0
|What is the compelling reason to simply replace an existing system with the 'latest' iteration?
Change for the sake of change? What an asinine reason is that!
It is a business decision driven by a risk analysis combined with a cost/benefit analysis or simply an increase in the functionality and compatibility with mission critical software tools - as it should be. Duh!
What is amazing, and rather stupid, is the assumption that they, simply by virtue of a new OS being available, should necessarily change regardless of the larger considerations effecting the environment.
Score: 0
|I will agree with the folks at Intel that there have been more compelling reasons NOT to replace XP with Vista than compelling reasons to make the switch. Vista is a dud. MS has spent so much time and money trying to take over the search engine market and other internet based enterprises that it has neglected its core business: operating systems.
Score: 0
|Unfortuneatly for Microsoft ... 'it does not perceive Vista as a "necessary upgrade" for XP, and besides Microsoft's ongoing marketing efforts, there is nothing technologically that forces clients to use Vista for fundamental Windows services.'
Score: 0
|Why bother. Wait a year and start looking past Vista.
Score: 0
|Why not do much better than that and look past Vista... to the Mac. I did, and now according to a new report by the Yankee Group, 80% of businesses are now drinking the delicious flavor of Apple Macintosh:
http://www.computerworld...3958&intsrc=hm_list
Once again Apple leads the way... The question is will the rest of you be smart enough to follow?
Score: 0
|Well, it would only be a good thing if more did. The fear might wake up MS.
Score: 0
|Survey is not an SRS therefor inaccurate and no good.
Score: 0
|*laughs*
Score: 0
|Heh...
Intel even beat us to it. We haven't even started migrating yet.
Probably start pushing out new systems in about 2 months. Those will likely be loaded with Vista.
Score: 0
|They have their ideas in the right place.
Score: 0
|