Hi Tony
Thanks for the comments and the blogs as all are a great help.
I think that there is a mismatch of ideas here. I am talking about a
database manager that is typically used by one or two people in the small
business environment not a full blown server. QM, MySQL, Microsoft
SQLServer, Access all run on Vista yet D3 apparently doesn't, that does
not
look good. By the way that sort of usage is covered under the Microsoft
EULA for XP and Vista.
I have now seen how seamless the operation of Parallels can be so I am
considering using something of that nature however it still increases the
complexity and cost of a system. As for recommending Vista, I have no
hesitation now that I have used it.
Peter McMurray
"Tony Gravagno" <address.is.in.posts@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
message news:eqem14dqsir8nn9cff1jnjqfp7pn0d9urq@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "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
|
