Quote:
| Originally Posted by macstinator Well, we had better get used to it. MS is due to dump XP soon enough and focus totally on Vista.
This situation is no different than that faced by XP a few years back relative to Windows '00/NT. |
It is very different IMVHO. The moves to Win9x, WinNT, WinXp all had very clear business cases. Even so many some business are still using NT and 2000 because the migration cost/benefit does not add up for them. By the time you factor in user training, lost productivity from the learning curve, reskilling support staff; the cost of Hardware and the O/S is pretty trivial for most business users.
Personally I find the combination of XP Pro and Office XP (2002) about the best bang for buck for the vast majority of users. There ain't much that it can not do reliably and it is easier to deploy and support remotely.
I am finding it extremely difficult to find a compelling reason why any business would want to switch to Vista. A tiny number of users will benefit from 64 bit but most of the applications they use are already available on other platforms without the Vista baggage.
Quote:
|
Anyhoo, it is still more compatible with a wider range of products than the 'ever so fashionable' Mac, even if its Unix based OS is pretty solid.
|
The number of apps/hardware/whatever that Vista is incompatible with is not so important as the density of those apps.
The Mac is not so straightforward to support in larger networks. For home users it offers most of what Windows offers but without the Windows headaches. You do not need to be a geek to get what you want out of a Mac. People are starting to realise this is worth the price premium and hence the number of Macs being sold is increasing pretty rapidly.
Linux is a completely different kettle of fish. It offers far too much choice. Ideal for niche applications operated by people with intimate knowledge, but bloody awful for the unwashed majority.
Just my 2p