Microsoft victim of its own success

[yakyb]

my concerns are with vista as someone mentioned above most people use intergrated for work (im at work now using integrated and its perfectly good) now then with the iminent release of Vista and its increased requirements will intergrated graphics be a viable option both for low end consumers and office enviroments. now im not saying that people will all upgrade when the new o/s is released however, the gateways, dells and other such manufacturers will be wanting to use the new o/s as an advertisement tool for its systems which at first will be the higher end (not enthusiast) systems ~£750 or ~$1200 which will have to include at least a 6600 (but i guess something along the lines of a 8300 or X2300). now my point is unless intel can produce a more powerful cheap graphics solution it may get left behind esspecially in a couple of years time when Vista becomes the normand xp is filtered out.

Secondly will Xp be filtered out in the office enviroment the office im in contains 75 comps (pretty good spec Dells, 2.4GHz DC 1gb ram) all running Xp now there is a lot of software written in house, and the system works very well as it is. why should we upgrade here? possibly in a few years broken parts may require upgrading comps. but does Vista really offer anything that xp doesnt that will require all the businesses around the world to fork out massive amounts of cash for it?

when 3.1 was changed to 95 there was a big change.
then 95 was updated to 98 and then NT i dont know much about the changes here maybe some one can inform me please!
xp realistically is a very good operating system (despite its critics)
therefore will MS become a victim of its own success and not do that well with Vista?

 

[Sonic_Reducer]

well that can happen , but i think intel will come up with something, despite that i have a release of vista running on a ti4220 wich is a old card and runns fine with most of the eye candy , but you can run vista and get rid of the eye candy like xp , in that case, integrated graphics will be just fine, you'll just lose the eye candy , but you'll gain performance, and i can say my vista it's better that xp, more light , my computer seems to run faster on vista, despite all the limitations it should have, and i compared to fresh installed systems with respective antivirus only. so i think that microsoft will have a very good and stable new system.

 

[yakyb]

thats good to know i have only heard people ranting on here about the proposed visual improovements but its good to know that it runs apparently quicker than Xp i wasnt going to try the beta but i may do now thanks Sonic

 

[prozac26]

I'll be building a new PC in September, with Vista in mind. I'll get XP on it, and I think I'll get Vista when SP1 comes for it. I might get it earlier if there are some games that need Vista.

Also, if I get Vista, I'll probably be getting 4gb of RAM, and a DX10 video card.

 

[Pain]

I know of no company that upgrades OS's just because it's available. I support 2 offices with around 50 computers each, and I still use w2k on the machines of that era. Why do I need to upgrade? It's not cost effective for most people, unless maybe you're developing software for Vista or maybe you need an app that will only run on Vista, but that won't happen for a year after it's released.

As for the whole integrated graphics thing. I don't need to worry about such things. The developers and suppliers will figure it out.

 

[zeroyb]

Whatever happens, I refuse to call a company with billions upon billions of dollars, a "victim" of anything.

 

[MU_Engineer]

Microsoft is not a victim of its own success- it is a victim of sitting on its butt after producing an okay OS (W2K) and having a monopoly on computer OSes. W2K worked well enough for most people and so MS just tweaked W2K a little bit and out came XP. MS waited a LOOOOOOOONG time and now a slightly more modified version (Vista) is going to be shipped.

Microsoft has played its relatively average hand very shrewdly (it was given a near-monopoly on PCs by IBM with MS-DOS) and thus has immense inertia and a huge amount of lock-in too so even if you wanted to switch OSes and/or business applications, it would be very hard to do so. MS isn't dumb- why work (make an entirely new OS from scratch) when you don't have to? It is far easier and cheaper that way.

 

[pojomofo]

I know of no company that upgrades OS's just because it's available. I support 2 offices with around 50 computers each, and I still use w2k on the machines of that era. Why do I need to upgrade? It's not cost effective for most people, unless maybe you're developing software for Vista or maybe you need an app that will only run on Vista, but that won't happen for a year after it's released.

As for the whole integrated graphics thing. I don't need to worry about such things. The developers and suppliers will figure it out.

Agreed, My company has 30 users ( All Dells as well) and we only upgraded to XP as we upgraded, usually the upgrade cycle seems to be about 4-5 years. There are still a few users on 2K, and they will get upgraded soon.

What company actually goes out and buys all new OS for every user on launch day??? VERY few. Vista will get cycled just like XP got cycled in and like every other major software release has.

 

[fredgiblet]

You forgot the best choice. "After Service Pack 1".