"Peter McMurray" wrote:
>> This is why I prefer to wait for the platform to mature. It probably
>> will. I just don't want to be a guinea pig in the process.
>Vista is not only good it is selling NOW.
Not as a server. I decided to keep up with this discussion only
because I'm concerned that any of my clients may decide they "need" to
get Vista and then all of a sudden ask me to sup****t that decision.
As a workstation do what you want but I strongly question Vista for
running a multi-user networked DBMS.
>> And as far as mixed environments, what's wrong with putting D3NT on XP
>> and putting it in a corner where users never need to look at it? Put
>> it on a laptop and push it under a desk. Put XP on a virtual on top
>> of Vista, running in the background. The only connectivity users need
>> is telnet. What's the deal with having a different operating system
>> in the office when they never, ever need to see it?
>
>TONY Tony Tony CASH Cash Cash
>In a small business every dollar comes directly out of the owners pocket
and
>say we have 2 users then you are asking the owner to splash out 50% extra
on
>hardware because you cannot run on the latest system. Of course the in
>house expert - his son - and his accountant are saying you don't need
that
>old stuff everything else runs on the latest gear and costs less. Please
>don't argue they are actual examples from actual clients who actually
make a
>devil of a lot more money than we do.
My friend, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't question your
experience or current discussions with your clients. But the above
arguments show a clear disconnect. I've suggested ignoring the OS and
then the issue is no longer about consistency but cost of hardware.
I've suggested using a virtual to save hardware and somehow that's not
acceptable. I say you never see the system but now comes the argument
about the son insisting everything needs to be modern. That only
applies when the son can see the system, and I think he'll point at
the character interface before the OS that he can't see in the first
place. The youngster/accountant who convince the owner that they need
to be up on modern stuff must balance their fervor with cost, where as
you've said, an issue is cash cash cash. There are simple arguments
here:
- There's no benefit to running server software on Vista.
- Vista isn't a server OS and not sup****ted as such by Microsoft.
- As a server you can't see it any more than you can see Linux.
So how can one sup****t the position that a change is required simply
because new is newer than older? And here's another point - if they
do get Vista per their insistence and your recommendation despite the
advice to the contrary from your colleagues here, what happens when it
doesn't work properly? How much will that cost our cost-conscious
end-users? I hope you will charge them for the time it takes to
sup****t the platform if something goes wrong? That will be tough
considering you sup****t the transition. In my case I've spent some
unbillable hours with a single customer sup****ting their decision just
to do development in an all-Vista environment, and from now on as soon
as I hear the word Vista the timer goes on and we bill for the time.
Why will I penalize clients for using Vista, because I've already
strongly recommended against it for free, so if they insist on using
it they'll have to pay for that decision. When Vista has stablized
and proven its worthiness then this position will change - not now.
I think there's another trend that we're seeing here which I didn't
catch before. People who have technical awareness are generally (not
universally of course) trying Vista and then switching back to XP.
"Typical" end users who are forced to get Vista on their new PC don't
know that they can switch back and they accept the pain that they must
learn something new. "Gosh, I guess that's the way computers work
these days." End-users will get frustrated as hell, not only because
all of their software is now completely different from what it was
before but because of the annoying prompts they endure in the process,
and because the software they actually want still isn't available or
functioning properly.
Well, people in this forum question the "new is better" argument all
the time and in this community strongly fight the concept - for good
reason. Vista is not better any more than GUI is better. It must be
justified in some way other than newness. Your cost argument just
doesn't hold up when you can get vmWare for free. Your personal
sentiment that Vista is bloody good doesn't hold up when you still
can't get your DBMS of choice after it's been in re-development for
the last year to sup****t the platform - and for no good reason at that
other than marketing pressure.
For the end-user this whole thing is about Marketing. I happen to
sup****t the .NET initiative because I see a lot of benefits, and
Microsoft has done a luke-warm job of properly selling .NET compared
to pu****ng it down people's throats. Unfortunately they've done a
good job of Marketing the ***y Apple-like look of Vista which has no
immediate and compelling benefits for developers compared to its
current issues.
Let your users get Vista for their desktops. For the server there's
just no good reason to use Vista - not now anyway. Please consider a
completely free vmWare or Virtual PC solution, which for the small
environments being discussed seems to be an ideal compromise.
Regards,
T
|
