Desktop platforms Toolkit
Story: Vista migration plans unexpectedly ambitious
ambitious? sure
clearly this report is biased in favor of microsoft's plan
our IT department experienced with all vista release candicates and set it up running, its impressive alright but we all voted not to upgrade, reason as follows:
1. Money: take just one calculator to figure this out. take $350 to get vista os, add in licensing fee per pc plus all the hardware upgrade fees which varies from $200 to $450, and of course deploying them takes manpower, there goes couple grands too. Putting this together to a sum - X, multiply by 1000, which is amount of desktops & laptops in the firm, there goes the rough number. Is microsoft gonna pay for it ? don't think so.
2. Time. Then again, time is money. Every major os deployment takes time, then we ask ourselves one single question- Why ? why go thru all the trouble to get this upgrades? the cost of maintenance is only a friction of upgrading/buying new system, everything runs fine why would we need to bother ourselves for? Whats so new about vista, reliability? more secure ? Yeah they say that to xp and i am not falling for that again. Bottom line- nobody needs it! if aero effect is whats selling, hey we can always get a mac, and its so much better!
so eh, vista migration plans ambitious? i don't see any sign of that anywhere. where did they conduct this survey anyways, in Redmond perhaps ? this report is totally bias, I want my 10 minutes back.
Full Talkback thread
