Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> Vista take-up predictions rubbished
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | There are even fewer reasons for businesses to upgrade
> | to Windows Vista than there were for upgrading to
> | Windows XP, according to an expert in software migration.
> |
> | Rich Bentley, client and mobile manager for software
> | developer Altiris, also attacked some market researchers
> | for over-optimistic forecasts, in particular Gartner and
> | IDC figures, which suggest that Vista could be inm
> | ainstream use by the end of 2007.
> |
> | The IDC report in particular was funded by Microsoft...
> `----
>
> http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?newsID=7176&pagtype=all
>
> Also today:
>
> Is Vista Doomed from the Start?
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | DOS 3.3: GOOD
> | DOS 4.2: BAD
> | DOS 5.0: GOOD
> | DOS 6.0: BAD
> | DOS 6.22: GOOD
> | Windows 3.0: BAD
> | Windows 3.1: GOOD
> | Windows 95: BAD
> | Windows NT/98: GOOD
> | Windows ME: BAD
> | Windows 2000/XP: GOOD
> | Windows Vista: ?
> `----
>
>
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=203131&start=0
>
> The latter is a 'non-scientific' argument that says there is a flop
> followed by a 'fix'. Good, bad, good, bad...
>
> Given 2000/XP's many problems (e.g. security), this breakdown is highly
> subjective. As Vista's service pack is being worked on and 60% of the
> code needs to be rewritten, there won't be any developments any time
> soon. Vista itself is just XP in a new gown. There was never a better
> time to move to a platform which evolves every single day.
There is another reason for trying to avoid a Vista upgrade, when they find
that in the company name change or take over several years ago, they
licenses may have become invalid, particularly for those who paid MS for
those rip-off company licenses.
CA does allow for a company being purchased by another, you have to get
written permission to transfer the licenses, the company being bought has
to pay off the full term of the CA licenses, but then neither company has
any further rights for updates. Effectively the software is frozen, or at
least it is meant to be according to the agreement.
Where as if you stuck with the OEMs and individually bought licenses, you
are allowed to transfer these once, and once only, but you still need
written permission.
In the years of XP and MS Office, I wonder how many companies have changed
hands and not realised that their MS software license is now invalid, it
doesn't belong to the company who is using it.
I had to look into this stuff and because it was doing my head in working
out what the agreements actually meant I went off to various internet
groups to talk about it. The conclusion is that it is worded in such a way
that the users are always in violation of the agreement, bit like the
bible, you are always a sinner, but in this case the only way to repent is
to keep throwing money at MS in the hope that they wont feed you to the
lions.
Linux has it's problem areas, but we are not in rip-off territory. It's
actually very difficult for the average user to break the license and
that's the way it should be.
MS are in the shit, and hopefully going to drown in it, but I hate the idea
that we're all going to get splashed. I wish they was some way to pass the
entire XP/Vista projects to someone else, someone we can trust.
|
|
