View Full Version : HP Chairman on Vista
Here's an article with some real insight into Vista from someone whose opinion actually has some merit, Head of Hewlett-Packard.
http://advice.cio.com/laurianne_mcla...moment_in_2007
six_storm
12-06-07, 09:00 AM
Nice! Good find man.
conroejoe
12-06-07, 09:59 AM
haha PAGE NOT FOUND. Apparently they realized someone was on crack and removed the article.
Electronic Punk
12-06-07, 10:04 AM
Web address don't tend to have ... in them ;p
http://advice.cio.com/laurianne_mclaughlin/hp_ceo_vista_never_had_its_moment_in_2007
Link works fine on two different PCs here.
conroejoe
12-06-07, 11:45 AM
The only way Vista has a chance is to kill XP - completely, entirely. Because you cannot sell an inferior product when you already have a superior product. I agree with the article - it doesn't sound like they have any technical knowledge about Vista and it's problems just the fact that IT people don't want to use it and that most IT people aren't interested in it. Our IT guys just laugh when I asked them their thoughts on Vista. One of them tried to run it at home, got frustrated and wiped the drive back to XP.
Redeemed
12-06-07, 12:18 PM
The only way Vista has a chance is to kill XP - completely, entirely. Because you cannot sell an inferior product when you already have a superior product. I agree with the article - it doesn't sound like they have any technical knowledge about Vista and it's problems just the fact that IT people don't want to use it and that most IT people aren't interested in it. Our IT guys just laugh when I asked them their thoughts on Vista. One of them tried to run it at home, got frustrated and wiped the drive back to XP.
I really find it odd that you make such statements when Vista is selling more copies than XP did when XP was just as new. And XP had glaring problems that lasted far longer than Vista has. I was running XP since it was first introduced. What we're experiencing now with Vista is the same thing we experienced with XP. Except Microsoft has already fixed most the bugs with Vista wheras by this time when XP was released (almost a year after its release in other words) there were still a large amount of issues.
If people like you ran the industry we'd all still be stuck with the original Pentiums and MMX in place of what we have now. :rolleyes:
six_storm
12-06-07, 12:46 PM
If people like you ran the industry we'd all still be stuck with the original Pentiums and MMX in place of what we have now. :rolleyes:
So if people who have tried Vista, don't like it and go back to Vista, they are "stuck" and won't progress to the future technologies? Highly doubt that man. I've still got Vista on my desktop and use it everyday on my laptop. However, Vista isn't all that great IMO and isn't the best way to use my hardware. I still want to progress with future technologies!
Aren't future technologies supposed to be more efficient, faster and better than it's predecessor?
Rakeesh
12-06-07, 01:19 PM
So if people who have tried Vista, don't like it and go back to Vista, they are "stuck" and won't progress to the future technologies? Highly doubt that man. I've still got Vista on my desktop and use it everyday on my laptop. However, Vista isn't all that great IMO and isn't the best way to use my hardware. I still want to progress with future technologies!
Aren't future technologies supposed to be more efficient, faster and better than it's predecessor?
With hardware, yes. However what software do you know of that gets smaller and faster as time progresses?
It may be selling well on a consumer level, but on a corporate level 200X/XP remain standard.
six_storm
12-06-07, 01:42 PM
With hardware, yes. However what software do you know of that gets smaller and faster as time progresses?
That's very true, but then again I don't understand why software makers can't take more time to optimize code and increase performance instead of making something completely new every 2-3 years. Does that make sense?
Redeemed
12-06-07, 01:42 PM
With hardware, yes. However what software do you know of that gets smaller and faster as time progresses?
QFT.
It may be selling well on a consumer level, but on a corporate level 200X/XP remain standard.
Again, QFT. But on that front Linux distros are ever more popular as well... soooooo... ahem! :lol:
Linux is not more popular in business.
Web servers, yes. Desktop workstations, no.
Mr Bigman
12-06-07, 02:56 PM
Wow, just wow.
We as consumers should have more of a stance in our technology cuz we are the ones who use it everyday and we spend the money on it.
Corprate level shouldn't be that looked at cuz they don't push the many aspects of the os cuz they only use 1 or 2 apps plus there email and messenging.
We consumers use many more parts of the os and we do much more. So we should the majority rule.
Like ive said before i use Vista 64 and its damn nice and very explorable.
See folks since 95, people haven't really found much new on the OS level until Vista. There new areas and secret places not found in other versions of windows. Its like discoverying new territory, you find something new and thats what Vista is doing.
So enough with the damn bitching bout a product that has a decent future ahead of it. XP was the say way and perhaps worse at first cuz at times it would corrup the registry and you would get the system32\config\system or software error on bootup. Vista does a much better job at watching the registry for errors or corruption so get over already.
Its guys like Me and redeemed who been around for awhile and know what the **** we are doing so we execpt Vista and do what we do to make it work for us.
Redeemed
12-06-07, 02:56 PM
Linux is not more popular in business.
Web servers, yes. Desktop workstations, no.
I never once said Linux was more popular than Windows... but in general linux has greater popularity in the corporate realm than the consumer. That was all I was saying.
Redeemed
12-06-07, 02:58 PM
Wow, just wow.
We as consumers should have more of a stance in our technology cuz we are the ones who use it everyday and we spend the money on it.
Corprate level shouldn't be that looked at cuz they don't push the many aspects of the os cuz they only use 1 or 2 apps plus there email and messenging.
We consumers use many more parts of the os and we do much more. So we should the majority rule.
Like ive said before i use Vista 64 and its damn nice and very explorable.
See folks since 95, people haven't really found much new on the OS level until Vista. There new areas and secret places not found in other versions of windows. Its like discoverying new territory, you find something new and thats what Vista is doing.
So enough with the damn bitching bout a product that has a decent future ahead of it. XP was the say way and perhaps worse at first cuz at times it would corrup the registry and you would get the system32\config\system or software error on bootup. Vista does a much better job at watching the registry for errors or corruption so get over already.
Its guys like Me and redeemed who been around for awhile and know what the **** we are doing so we execpt Vista and do what we do to make it work for us.
:rofl
I honestly appreciate you Bigman, I do. :lol:
I dunno, Redeemed, Linux may have more of a corporate following, but I doubt that as well. It's kind of a moot point anyways.
As far as using 1 or 2 apps on the corporate level, I FREAKIN WISH! Besides MS Office, I have 10 different pricing applications that I use all the time. Not to mention the number of utility apps to help me convert files, print them, etc.
Redeemed
12-06-07, 03:13 PM
I dunno, Redeemed, Linux may have more of a corporate following, but I doubt that as well. It's kind of a moot point anyways.
As far as using 1 or 2 apps on the corporate level, I FREAKIN WISH! Besides MS Office, I have 10 different pricing applications that I use all the time. Not to mention the number of utility apps to help me convert files, print them, etc.
Sounds like you need an iMac... :retard:
nekrosoft13
12-06-07, 03:21 PM
I really find it odd that you make such statements when Vista is selling more copies than XP did when XP was just as new. And XP had glaring problems that lasted far longer than Vista has. I was running XP since it was first introduced. What we're experiencing now with Vista is the same thing we experienced with XP. Except Microsoft has already fixed most the bugs with Vista wheras by this time when XP was released (almost a year after its release in other words) there were still a large amount of issues.
If people like you ran the industry we'd all still be stuck with the original Pentiums and MMX in place of what we have now. :rolleyes:
just ignore him, he post the same BS over and over.
nekrosoft13
12-06-07, 03:23 PM
It may be selling well on a consumer level, but on a corporate level 200X/XP remain standard.
company i work for is about 60% vista, 40% xp. People in the office are mainly XP because IT is waiting for some old old software to be finally updated by lazy companies. 90% of technitians use vista.
company i work for is about 60% vista, 40% xp. People in the office are mainly XP because IT is waiting for some old old software to be finally updated by lazy companies. 90% of technitians use vista.
Did they upgrade to Vista or get new machines?
Is there much use of proprietary or custom software?
I'm just curious because I got a new machine this year that was Windows XP specific due to known issues with a lot of our pricing and engineering programs and Vista.
Did they upgrade to Vista or get new machines?
Is there much use of proprietary or custom software?
I'm just curious because I got a new machine this year that was Windows XP specific due to known issues with a lot of our pricing and engineering programs and Vista.
I know this isn't addressed at me, but I feel like weighing in.
Any new machines we get are C2Ds with 1 or 2 gigs of ram. In my mind, these are Vista capable machines. However, we have less than 10% of our total machines with this capability. The vast majority of our machines are P4s with 512mb or 256mb. Even with Vista scaled down, these machines just are not going to cut it. Hell, we still have a few very old P3s with 256mb of ram running Windows 2000 because XP is too bloated for them.
We simply do not have the horsepower to run Vista. To comfortably run Vista and Office 07, you simply need 1gb of ram and a modern processor. It CAN be done on a P4 and 512, but the equivalent experience on XP (and Office 03, for that matter) would be much better.
Which leads me to believe that no corporation in their right mind would do a full scale Vista migration. It seems to me that they would slowly adopt it by getting new Vista ready machines when older machines have run their course.
Last year, I was still using a P3 1.1 512mb with W2k. They got me a new machine before Vista came out, but I think they would have switched me over if our software would allow it. I'm not certain of that though because we had heavy usage of digitizer boards that were serial port and just flat out weird applications. I work for a new company this year, they bought me a XP machine even though Vista was out.
Rakeesh
12-06-07, 04:49 PM
That's very true, but then again I don't understand why software makers can't take more time to optimize code and increase performance instead of making something completely new every 2-3 years. Does that make sense?
Well optimizing code isn't something that is just plain as day obvious all the time. Sometimes after a codemonkey throws together a bunch of lines, he might say to himself "you know, I could have done that better," then it later gets rewritten to be more efficient. Sometimes.
Often times this won't even be noticed because you have two different teams working on two separate objects of code, and because they don't know exactly what the other is doing line for line, they may not think of a way that those two objects can interact more efficiently.
That's very true, but then again I don't understand why software makers can't take more time to optimize code and increase performance instead of making something completely new every 2-3 years. Does that make sense?
They don't make something compleyly new, that's part of the reason why software always runs slower. Windows has to be backwards compatible with software that's run on older versions, not to mention all the hardware that has to work. If they tossed out all the backwards compatibilities we could have much faster machines, but nobody is going to buy a machine that no longer runs old software, and requires completly new hardware, to run.
New Operating systems add new functionality, but they always run worse than those that predate them. The trick is that hardware eventually makes the slowdown irrelevent. One of the best examples was the jump from DOS/Win3.1 to Win95. Windows 95 added functionality out the Wazoo but when you compared it straight up against DOS on a speed level nothing could beat a DOS boot disk. But after a few years, we had pentium processors more than capable of running Windows 95. It's a cycle.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.