RSSVista, Office 2007 Debut for Businesses
by Ed Oswald
Microsoft's oft-maligned and much-delayed next-generation operating system is no longer just a talking point for the Redmond company, it's now a reality - at least for businesses.
At an event at the NASDAQ MarketSite in New York City, CEO Steve Ballmer announced the business availability of Windows Vista, Office 2007, and Exchange Server 2007. In addition, several other business-centric applications were also launched on Thursday.
In his statements to the press, Ballmer pointed to the collaboration between Microsoft and its customers in helping to develop the latest versions of the company's products. Of the company's three signature business products, beta versions were downloaded over five million times.
“It’s an incredible step forward for business computing in a year of unprecedented innovation from Microsoft," Ballmer said. "We expect that more than 200 million people will be using at least one of these products by the end of 2007.”
Microsoft highlighted the extensive support for XML as another "game-changer" for the industry, much like TCP/IP support in Windows 95 that helped to spur the popularity of the Internet, and Windows XP's support for wireless networking did the same for that industry.
The 30-some products introduced Thursday make up Microsoft's vision for the "People-Ready Business," an initiative that the company has been championing over the past year.
"These products will enable companies to unleash the full potential of their people to build profitable relationships with customers, spearhead new innovations and drive business success,” Ballmer said.
Analysts such as JupiterResearch's Michael Gartenberg say there is no reason for businesses to wait to deploy. In the past, he has recommended waiting for the first service pack, however he has changed his tune for Vista.
"I don’t think that’s warranted this time around. I’ve been using every version of this OS, from early Longhorn builds all the way to RTM and so far, it’s been secure, rock solid and works well once you get used to the new UI," he said.
In related news, both HP and Dell also said Thursday that they were prepared to offer products and support to accompany the launch of Vista, Office, Exchange and the other business products.
36 Comments
The UDP BSOD problem is fairly serious in my eyes. I use LimeWire, BitTorrent and other UDP based applications daily for my job. Upgrading and then crashing every 10 minutes because of some problem with the ndis.sys file was too much hassle to warrant ever going back to Vista. If they ever assure me the problem is fixed, then maybe.
Also, the only REAL reason Vista might be worth it. Halo 2. HA HA HA
No, seriously, plain and simple, UDP is important. Fix it.
Score: 0
I personally don't feel that Vista is such a "must-have" upgrade. I'm fine with WinXP for now. It's stable and fast.
Having said that, I think there are a lot of unjustified negative myths surrounding Vista. It's really a good OS for many reasons.
Score: 0
Chill out people, and read this.
I really agree with you, and i feel that even if Vista has little improvements all over around (except for requirements), there's nothing so important as to make the upgrade mandatory. Is Vista better? meh, maybe. Is it better enough; how do pros and cons balance? Well, not so much of value to feel enthusiast. GUI, DX10, everything is overhyped, and everyone should accept that we live in a world of HYPE. That's marketing people, and you know it.
Even for security, anyone can live securely with XP by now, using security soft and being a little smart.
It's not a good investment for now. Maybe for 2008, when computers are faster and maybe the OS itself is a little serviced by papa MS.
Score: 0
WinXP security is an oxymoron. Sure, lets just make everyone an administrator. Yeah that's real secure.
Score: 0
Vista is worthless to BitTorrent or Limewire users.
There is a flaw in the ndis.sys file that causes blue screens when UDP traffic is high.
I tried the 32 bit and 64 bit Ultimate versions and both have the same issues.
Exchanging the file with one from XP Pro works for UDP but is screws up other network issues. So until that is fixed, it seems to be a worthless upgrade. At least for me.
Score: 0
It might actually be true that there's no reason to not upgrade for businesses. Many of those businesses are on contract, and have essentially paid for the upgrade anyhow. If you're not paying any more $, then it's probably not a bad idea to upgrade. It really is a more secure platform, though indeed it's still not as solid as xp.
If you had to pay $299 to get your hands on it, then ya, you may want to wait a little while. But let's call it what it is; a service pack with bells & whistles.
Score: 0
"But let's call it what it is; a service pack with bells & whistles."
You lost any credibility you could of possibly had...obviously uninformed statement.
Score: 0
Sorry; for most business users, that's what Vista amounts to. Unless, of course, you think that IP6 is that big of a productivity increaser.
Score: 0
Propaganda, just that.
Vista is like their predecessors (from 95 to XP). In the first version is Buggy, a resource hog, but this time is worse: Useless. It doesn't improve the UI but degrade it. Hiding the program menus is a big step backwards. The "aero" is a direct kick in the brain.. It's SLOW (you need a 256mb video card to try it!). If you copy Apple's work, at least do it good. Aqua interface is good, intuitive and fast, Aero just sucks. Then you have the RAM... 1gb as minimum? Wow, NASA reached the moon with 48kb, but Microsoft needs 1gb to BOOT.
And Directx 10, yeah, nothing new under the sun.
And then release another Office suit, just to change the file formats and force everybody to upgrade..
I will boycott Microsoft!
Windows XP is fine, OpenOffice is great free suite and I'll stay with them! I can't recommend Linux, but if the community improves the GUI, I will.
Microsoft, I hope this will be your last fat OS !
Score: 0
I knew you were an idiot form sentence one, but this proved it:
(you need a 256mb video card to try it!)
You can run Vista Aero on 128 easily. My ATI Radeon 9600 AIW handles it just fine.
The rest of your rant is as inaccurate as the beginning.
Score: 0
Your insult only prove your kind.
You can run Vista with less than 128mb of VRAM too (64mb for the classic interface), but I was writing about the new aero requirement. The minimum video memory is 128mb for VRAM and 512mb of RAM, but you should know that minimum requirements for Microsoft OSs make the system to crawl. Did you try to run Windows XP with 64mb of RAM? Or Windows 95 with 8mb to go earlier? Those were the minimum requirements and they sucked, the same way as Vista sucks with a mainstream video card with 128mb if you try to use AERO. You need a high end Video card, for what? To see windows cascade? To maximize or turn windows? That sucks, too much.
For the rest of my review, you can try to show me if I was inaccurate, but you should hide your tail, if you're smart enough, are you?
Score: 0
Nope.
My 128MB card runs Aero smoothly.
Re: RAM - I thought OS X was even worse. Most MacBook and MBP users that I know either have 1GB or 2GB of RAM bcos of Rosetta, etc.
Score: 0
Microsoft FanBoy!!!
I'll Bet You Ran Out And Bought a Zune!!!
Score: 0
"you need a 256mb video card to try it"
I have an Nvidia 6600 (128mb) that runs Aero as smooth as.
I've been using RC2, and find it generally very stable and seems to work on my 3 year old hardware "smoother" than XP.
Having just bought my first "legitimate" copy of XP Pro for AUD $99, I'll be upgrading in February to the Business edition of Vista for AUD $27. Looking forward to it!
Two OS's for $126 seems alright to me. Every major point version of OSX cost around the same, and there have been around 5 since 2001, compared to 2 paying version from Microsoft. (W2K3 excepted)
Score: 0
Calm down Floodland,
You can't compare the minimum requirements for Windows 95 with the minimum requirements for Windows XP or Vista. Thats ridiculous for any number of reasons.
Please keep your replies somewhere within the bounds of reality.
You may as well compare the base model of a 1968 Toyota Corolla for example with a base model 2006 Toyota Corolla. There is NO POINT!
Score: 0
129mb 6800GT here...Vista runs smooth as silk. Basically your just full of s***. You sound an awful lot like foxfyre, you related to that idiot?
Score: 0
So... pctool insult me and I have to calm down?
History make the point. In every M$ release, the minimum requirements were not realistic, for a number of reasons (sell more copies of the product the first one). I seriously doubt that this changed with Vista.
I'm glad that some users can run Vista with 128mb of VRAM, but that's oversimplification of the problem. The GPU is more important than the amount of memory of a video card anyway. 128mb of a Geforce 6800 isn't the same as an 128mb IGP (which most computers use today). Telling that you need 128mb of VRAM to run Vista is easier than explaining the Directx architecture or the GPU pipelines or NVIDIA/ATI generations, almost any kid knows to count how many memory his video card has... The problem is that M$ should optimize the engine enough to run in a mainstream card, which is not done.
Score: 0
I have to disagree here. I was skeptical about Vista, but it is a good OS. The folder layout is a little simplier and the navigation is awesome (check out the changes they made to the address bar). UAC is a great idea too and isn't annoying like others have said. I can't run Aero glass, but Aero Basic is fine (I don't have Pixel Shader 2.0) and it's running on a video card that is sharing main memory. Vista is fast, probably even faster than XP on my pc - boot time is a lot faster and so is the install.
I didn't test the beta's too much, but all in all I think it's a great OS.
Score: 0
OpenOffice is the REAL resource hogger. And you obviously have not really used Office 2007. Go try it for a week or two. I bet it will change your perception of MS Office forever.
IMO, Office 2007 is a more worthy upgrade than XP to Vista.
And as I said before, if you want to say Vista is a resource hog, go take a look at OS X. It is a big resource hogger. So are its software. Look at Safari, iTunes, Garage Band, etc.
Score: 0
MS don't have fanboy. I think you mistaken anyone who does not an Apple fanboy like yourself are categorize as MS Fanboy.
Score: 0
I have tested Office 2007 and I don't like it at all. The GUI is cluttered, waste monitor space with useless icons. Any component takes even more time to load than open office (which I criticized more than once because of that). The price scheme is terrible.
I worked for a Apple store more than two years. I don't actually use Mac OS, but I can say that the experience for the end user is superb and NOT a resource hog at all. If you talk about iTunes, yes, it's a resource hog on Windows (not on Mac OS), but a lot less than the pain in the a*s that Office 2004 is on Mac OS.
Rosseta can be a resource hog too, but that's something M$ never got (and can't do): A transparent emulation for a different architecture. The end user don't even know that the OS is emulating a completely different computer to run an outdated software. On the other end, Microsoft removed 16 bits support for Vista. OK, I'm not using 16bits software anymore, but I know people who do.
Some people remind me the american colonization, where Christopher Columbus (among other many things) exchanged mirrors for gold to the indigenous. 500 year later the mirror is Windows Vista, and many of you are going to buy the expensive OS with your gold because it show you an "improved" interface. Sad.
Score: 0
"The problem is that M$ should optimize the engine enough to run in a mainstream card, which is not done".
I tend to agree with you on that point. My Geforce 4 4200 with 128mb wasn't fast enough to render the Aero desktop, yet it is fast enough to play a game such as Doom3 without any problems. Hence I had to upgrade to a 6600. I agree, MS could have done better there.
As for PC_Tool, yes he does have an issue with phrasing his words so not to appear to insult other posters. I've been on the receiving end of his word choices. Ignore them and you will live longer.
To quote the Betanews posting rules...
"Comments and reviews are not strictly moderated, however BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated on BetaNews".
Obviously a lie. They DO tolerate foul language and personal attacks!
Score: 0
I'm with Floodland[/i] on this one. Office 2007 lets you do some things — like Tables and Charts — in seconds rather than minutes, but the UI is ghastly inefficient, unless you're a blind 1st grader who likes massive icons and pretty colors everywhere (they bring out the inner little girl in me). And yes, I've beta-tested Office 2007 throughout 2006. The best thing is that the Student/Teacher version can be had for $149 on Amazon next month.
But the sheer FUD of those who keep saying OpenOffice is a resource hog is so tired when I look in my task manager and the QuickStarter applet only takes 52M, which I can disable if I want since it starts the same anyway in about two seconds. So if 52M is hogging [i]your resources, you might want to trade up from your Wal-Mart special. Moreover, when you scratch the surface of StarOffice/OpenOffice, you see it contains the best features of Office 2003 without all the bloat. But since you've already lied about the program, I take it you haven't used it in more than two years!
As for Vista, businesses will take a minimum of a 1-3 years to roll it out. They have to test it first, even though Microsoft says it's good, that doesn't mean it won't break your company if you can't fix it. And I won't be convinced to upgrade to it for at least a year or until its first Service Pack. History has taught me patience (finally).
Score: 0
Floodland... not only can you run Vista without Aero Glass on less than 128 MB of VRAM, you can also run it *with* Aero Glass on DirectX 9-capable integrated graphics cards. If you don't believe me, come here and look at this Intel GMA 950-based machine running Aero Glass.
Score: 0
And of course, as Steve Ballmer will say, Vista is also going to be a great platform for:
Developers, developers, developers, developers, developers!
Score: 0
Vista wasn't rock solid in any of the beta, RC versions I tested. Dude be smoking crack.
Wait for SP1.
Score: 0
Must be the crap hardware you're testing it on.
Score: 0
Agreed. And I tested it on top-notch, brand new hardware.
Score: 0
I guess that says more about Vista than my hardware. XP runs fine on it.
HP dc7600 Intel PIV-D 930
gig of ram
Embedded Video
Pretty much a standard business desktop. You can't get more generic, and if anything should run decent, that system or similar to Dell is it.
Score: 0
Microsoft FanBoy!!!
Ill Bet You Ran Out And Bought a Zune!!!
Score: 0
I've tested Vista on 4 Dell workstations, 2 HP, and 2 laptops (a dell D620 and some toshiba)....Rock solid on all of them. I did have media player crash in RC1 a few times tho' on the laptop.
Score: 0
I've been using the Vista RTM since it was made available on MSDN and so far so good. I had a problem with mapping network drives to my server using the GUI and finally was able to using the command line. Don't really know what the problem was, but other than that I'm very happy with it.
On another note, I'm about to set up a new network for a company and I'm not comfortable with using Vista for them...yet.
Score: 0
I don't care what anyone says, about any operating system, I wait a few months before I even consider dropping it into production. I test in a lab, during and after the beta/ctp/rc phases, and keep my eyes and ears open to press reaction from others that walk through the minefield ahead of me. It's hard enough supporting the status quo. I can't justify adding more work to fix unforeseen problems from a new system. Doesn't matter whether it's Windows, Linux, or whatever. I'll wait until Q2/07 before I think of putting Vista into production.
Score: 0
"Analysts such as JupiterResearch's Michael Gartenberg say there is no reason for businesses to wait to deploy. In the past, he has recommended waiting for the first service pack, however he has changed his tune for Vista.
"I don’t think that’s warranted this time around. I’ve been using every version of this OS, from early Longhorn builds all the way to RTM and so far, it’s been secure, rock solid and works well once you get used to the new UI," he said."
That is truley a shock to me. While IMO Vista is rock-solid and more dependable even in its RC-1 form than most Microsoft RTM versions have been, I didn't expect the folks at JupitorResearch to ever admit or believe it. Maybe they aren't as unshakeably biased as I once thought...
Score: 0
Sounds more like somebody wrote them a check.
Score: 0
I think the state of computing has never been so bad. Windows OS is crap and always has been, but there's some great software out there for it. Mac OS X is good, but the available software for it is crap. Compare the ease of use of Microsoft's Digital Image Suite to Adobe Photoshop Elements and Microsoft wins hands down. The UI of Elements is a mess. For that reason I have to use OS X and Windows
Score: 0