The Active Network
ActiveMac Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise  


  Vista's Bad Rap and the Adoption Gap
Time: 23:51 EST/04:51 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Watch | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum

Forrester whacked Vista in not one but two reports: "Building The Business Case For Windows Vista: Five Reasons To Start Your Company's Migration Soon" and "Lessons Learned From Early Adopters Of Windows Vista: How Businesses Can Overcome The Most Common Migration Challenges."

Forrester analyst Benjamin Gray identifies Vista's biggest problem without clearly stating what it is. That's because the problem lies first with Microsoft, but he writes for technology professionals:

"Desktop operations professionals tell Forrester that they see the value in standardizing on Windows Vista, but many are having a hard time convincing their CIOs that the move isn't a risky bet, given the mixed reaction it's received in the press and the speculation surrounding what to expect after Windows Vista."

Write Comment
Return to News

  Displaying 1 through 25 of 122
Last | Next
  The time now is 6:30:16 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us
#1 By 8556 ( at 4/17/2008 8:45:27 AM
I presume that many businesses are watching their balance sheets in a time of, what WSJ has called, a "financial crisis". Why move to Vista and spend tight money which would be better used elsewhere, when Windows XP is doing the job on existing hardware which can be cheaply maintained or repaired?

#2 By 7754 ( at 4/17/2008 12:22:15 PM
#1, unfortunately, as businesses and consumers get sucked in by the media reports (which more than one analyst has chided as sensationalist), it grinds the economy to a halt. That's really sad, because there were so many businesses that were doing very well in spite of the bombardment of media reports (check out the Seagate CEO's comments, for example). There are some real problems, to be sure, but a lot more problems have been generated just by the Chicken Little-like nature of the media. It's always been this way to a degree, but it sure seems worse these days (perhaps because we're so "connected" now?).

#3 By 1896 ( at 4/17/2008 4:00:38 PM
#2 Regretfully I do not think that the economy is slowing down because of media reports.
For example I would say that the oil at #116/barrel could be, among others, a more plausible cause.
This trend of blaming the media reminds me of almost every totalitarian regime where "foreigners agents" and "provocateurs" are responsible for every problem.
Btw the second period is not intended as a direct answer to your reference to the media, just a general observation.

#4 By 2332 ( at 4/17/2008 5:05:43 PM
The idea that the "media" could cause an economic recession on a state, country, or global scale is absolutely ridiculous on so many different levels.

As Fritzly said, there are quite a few other plausible causes. Here are just a few:

1.) Commodity price increases due to the fall in the value of the dollar. (Not just oil, but basically everything else as well.)

2.) The Iraq War and the massive deficit spending it causes which in turn leads to a devaluation of the dollar. (See number 1.)

3.) The collapse of the housing market (probably the big one) that was proped up by constant interest rate cutting (read: cheap money) and the lack of regulation and oversight.

4.) The credit crisis caused by #3 also caused a huge question mark over the United States in terms of trustworthiness of our financial products, thereby dampening demand for those products, and causing huge financial institutions to fail. (Bear Sterns, for example.)

5.) The fact that while GDP has gone up, most Americans saw a *drop* in their income over the past 8 years.

That's just off the top of my head.

So what's a more likely cause of the economic downturn... Anderson Cooper or the reasons above?

#5 By 7754 ( at 4/17/2008 5:26:54 PM
#3,4: I never said that the media deliberately *causes/could cause a recession*, but that they take the real problems and magnify/exacerbate them and cause new ones as a result. This story has been going on for months upon months, and the effects are snowballing. People and corporations all around us are making *voluntary* decisions to reduce spending as the result of fear. The point of the "economic stimulus package" is to dump a huge sum of money--additional consumer spending--into the economy.

#6 By 1896 ( at 4/17/2008 6:08:50 PM
Pesonally I do not believe that the "stimulus package" will do anything but this is just my opinion.
As for peple and corporations reducing spending I would not call it "voluntary": if the price of gas, food etc. go up people's "buying power" decrease therefore they need to cut expenses that are deemed as not necessary or basic.
This trend makes corporations less inclined to invest in new equipments, expanding etc. because they forecast a slowdown in sales and, consequentially, a decline of the profits.
In my humble opinion the problem is that, in the last couple of years, too many people have lived way above their possibilities spending not real income but, typical example, borrowing money using home equity.
It is like investing using the margin in your account: as long as thing goes well you are ok but if there is a decline in the market your equity shrink and you get the call to cover it.
I might be seen as cynical but at the end of the story the big fishes ( Stear Berns) will be helped to survive it and the small ones (Jim and Jane Smith) will loose the house.
It happened before and it will happen again and again.

#7 By 7754 ( at 4/18/2008 12:03:58 AM
#6: certainly for some that are living at the edge of their budget, it won't be voluntary. But the figures seem to show that the price of gas has only a very limited affect on how many miles we drive per year. Also, I'm hardly fond of the weak dollar, but at the same time, it means our goods and services are less expensive for foreign consumers.

#8 By 2332 ( at 4/18/2008 10:49:59 AM
The stimulus pack is not meant to help individuals by giving them extra cash to cover bills or the price of gas. They might spin it like that, but that's not the purpose.

The real purpose of a package like this is pure demand side economics. You give a middle class / poor person $600, and they'll spend all of it. That $600 will have a far greater affect than just on that one person.

It's ironic that an administration who obviously believes whole heartedly in supply side economics would quickly turn to something they know actually works when the economy really shits the bed.

#9 By 4240821 ( at 10/27/2023 6:41:50 AM

#10 By 4240821 ( at 10/30/2023 4:30:12 PM

#11 By 4240821 ( at 10/31/2023 10:09:49 AM

#12 By 4240821 ( at 10/31/2023 3:54:54 PM

#13 By 4240821 ( at 11/1/2023 5:55:13 AM

#14 By 4240821 ( at 11/3/2023 5:12:40 PM

#15 By 4240821 ( at 11/4/2023 7:36:56 PM

#16 By 4240821 ( at 11/5/2023 2:09:03 PM

#17 By 4240821 ( at 11/8/2023 12:00:27 PM

#18 By 4240821 ( at 11/11/2023 2:45:43 AM

#19 By 4240821 ( at 11/11/2023 7:36:13 PM

#20 By 4240821 ( at 11/12/2023 11:17:32 AM

#21 By 4240821 ( at 11/13/2023 8:24:59 AM

#22 By 4240821 ( at 11/14/2023 3:50:09 PM

#23 By 4240821 ( at 11/16/2023 8:55:21 AM

#24 By 4240821 ( at 11/16/2023 6:15:30 PM

#25 By 4240821 ( at 11/17/2023 9:08:15 AM

Write Comment
Return to News
  Displaying 1 through 25 of 122
Last | Next
  The time now is 6:30:16 PM ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us
User name and password:


  *   *