Hello,
In a little more then 7 months out, my company is looking to deploy 300 new
systems. Right now the powers that be do not want us to deploy them with
Vista installed but rather xp pro just because vista is not test yet. I
think 7 months out is plenty of times to get all the kinks worked out and to
test compatability with our applications. I need to come up with some good
points to argue why we should deploy vista on the systems. Any thoughts on
some reasons why we should?
Thanks.

nick.h wrote:
> Hello,
> In a little more then 7 months out, my company is looking to deploy 300
> new
> systems. Right now the powers that be do not want us to deploy them with
> Vista installed but rather xp pro just because vista is not test yet. I
> think 7 months out is plenty of times to get all the kinks worked out and
> to
> test compatability with our applications. I need to come up with some
> good
> points to argue why we should deploy vista on the systems. Any thoughts
> on
> some reasons why we should?
> Thanks.

It took about four years for xp to mature, rolling out vista is just asking
for trouble....

Gaz

Some people are still using Windows 2000 in an enterprise environment. No
reason to upgrade to XP (for them). You would need to evaluate your needs
and see if Vista would fit the bill, not the other way around.

When Longhorn is released, it has a nice feature that allows you (With
Window XP SP2 and Vista) to check the security status of the client, and if
it isn't up to the specs that you state, it doesn't allow it on the network
(or only online to get updates, virus definitions,etc.).

Vista has a lot to offer, but in your case, it may all unused. You just have
to judge what you want, and see if Vista can offer it for you. XP is still
supported for a few more years, at least.

So then this guy called nick.h said something like:

> Hello,
> In a little more then 7 months out, my company is looking to deploy 300
> new
> systems. Right now the powers that be do not want us to deploy them with
> Vista installed but rather xp pro just because vista is not test yet. I
> think 7 months out is plenty of times to get all the kinks worked out and
> to
> test compatability with our applications. I need to come up with some
> good
> points to argue why we should deploy vista on the systems. Any thoughts
> on some reasons why we should?

Why do you want to deploy Vista? In a business environment you just want a
stable platform for applications. What is XP not doing? What will Vista do
better?

"Dustin Harper" <dharper> wrote in message
news:e3d4
> Some people are still using Windows 2000 in an enterprise environment. No
> reason to upgrade to XP (for them). You would need to evaluate your needs
> and see if Vista would fit the bill, not the other way around.
>
> When Longhorn is released, it has a nice feature that allows you (With
> Window XP SP2 and Vista) to check the security status of the client, and
if
> it isn't up to the specs that you state, it doesn't allow it on the
network
> (or only online to get updates, virus definitions,etc.).
>
> Vista has a lot to offer, but in your case, it may all unused. You just
have
> to judge what you want, and see if Vista can offer it for you. XP is still
> supported for a few more years, at least.



I work for a world-wide company...and we are still using Win2k. Works just
fine.
On a new system of course XP would make sense...
as it may be a while for the bugs to be fixed in Vista.

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:35:03 -0700, nick.h
<nickh> wrote:

>Hello,
>In a little more then 7 months out, my company is looking to deploy 300 new
>systems. Right now the powers that be do not want us to deploy them with
>Vista installed but rather xp pro just because vista is not test yet. I
>think 7 months out is plenty of times to get all the kinks worked out and to
>test compatability with our applications. I need to come up with some good
>points to argue why we should deploy vista on the systems. Any thoughts on
>some reasons why we should?
>Thanks.

It all depends on what applications you plan to run. Just my
experience, I've had no difficulity with software. I can run vintage
Windows 3.1 era software like a little file joiner/splitter called
Wincode to Office 97, to more recent applications like the very
demanding Photoshop CS or Sony's Vegas, a professional grade video
editor without problems. The irony is the only things that act up a
little are Microsoft included applets like Windows Explorer and Media
Player. So far the included IE7 browser for me has proved stable.

The best way to demonstrate it will work for your organization is test
it, test it and test it some more. That will prove or disprove it is
ready for YOU. Others may get different results.

Again my experience is sit down with the powers that be and give them
a little one on one demonstrating why you think Vista is the right
choice. Way back, I had a CEO who loved Lotus 1-2-3, and I wasn't that
big a fan. Took weeks, but I turned him around to use a database
approach which in the long run worked much better and simpler.

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:35:03 -0700, nick.h wrote:

> Hello,
> In a little more then 7 months out, my company is looking to deploy 300 new
> systems. Right now the powers that be do not want us to deploy them with
> Vista installed but rather xp pro just because vista is not test yet. I
> think 7 months out is plenty of times to get all the kinks worked out and to
> test compatability with our applications. I need to come up with some good
> points to argue why we should deploy vista on the systems. Any thoughts on
> some reasons why we should?
> Thanks.

I would not count on the 'kinks being worked out' by then. With the
problems I've seen and heard, I doubt that SP1 will work - personally, I'd
wait for SP2 or until SP1 is proven.

Nick,

I'm not saying anything bad about Vista, but a 300 machine rollout is a
large project. At this point, I personally think that there are too many
unknowns. I have a AMD Opteron 175 with 4 Gig of RAM, a Nvidia 7600 GS card
with 512 Meg of RAM and about 1.5 TB of drive space. I'm a developer and
have been testing Vista Business on my development machine for about 3 weeks
now. It has also taken me about 3 weeks to get all of the drivers stable on
my system and it's now working very well. I wouldn't even attempt to
rollout 300 machines at this point with Vista installed. It isn't just that
the OS is new, but many vendors drivers still need work. I'm all about
doing things right the first time with the least amount of problems. Unless
you can think of a compelling reason to move to Vista for 300 machines at
this point, I'm not sure it is worth the headaches that it might cause.

Best Regards

Michael Gould




"nick.h" <nickh> wrote in message
news:c181
[..]

Nick,

Well... how diverse is your hardware platform? All 300 "new" seats the same
manf/model? All 300 seats the same manf? Vista's only going on the new seats
and not existing seats? Point being... drivers, drivers, drivers. Vista
itself, imho, is pretty stable right now if you have all your drivers
working correctly. But... if you have driver issues, well, then all bets are
off.

Personally, I like Vista... but I wonder why you need to look for
justification in this NG for selling Vista upstream in your company... I
work on a large government project. Very large. Even though the customer is
clamoring for Vista (security, not Aero...) we are moving forward
cautiously. With a hw platform that consists of approximately 25-30
different PC models... well... it's a challenge. At any rate, I'd be
interested in knowing why you think it's so important to roll these 300
seats with Vista?

Lang


"nick.h" <nickh> wrote in message
news:c181
[..]