Sunday, December 10th 2006

TI will not upgrade to Vista until 2009

According to a press release from TI, their IT department has strongly advised against moving the company to Windows Vista.
TI will use Windows XP SP2 until at least 2009, as they "are confident Windows XP will continue to be a stable, cost-effective and secure operating system standard for TI during the next two years.
Maintaining Windows XP on their corporate network should save TI a lot of money in licensing and support costs.Source: The Inquirer
Add your own comment

51 Comments on TI will not upgrade to Vista until 2009

#1
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
No firm should ever consider switching over to Vista(or any new OS) overnight, it just isn't feasable. However, saying you are going to completely ignore it isn't exactly the best solution either. The best option is a slow adobption of it over the course of say a year. Even if you only have 1 person working on the project(very unlikely in a large firm) they could probably switch over 1000 computer a year to running vista, that gives them plenty of time to test each one they migrate over for stability and functionality.

Also, I would be pretty pissed as an employee if the company I worked for told me I couldn't use Vista as my OS on my HOME computer to do work unless they provided said computer.
Posted on Reply
#2
overcast
Our usual process, is that the migration occurs when users receive new PC's. It's a constant flow, so the oldest machines will be receiving PC's with Vista and so on and so forth. There is no plan to just upgrade existing 2000/XP machines. When it's time for them to be recycled , then they receive the latest OS.
Posted on Reply
#3
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
If I followed that plan I would still be supporting Windows 98 machines...
Posted on Reply
#4
Dippyskoodlez
mout12 said:
There are loads of people who slam MS because they don't come out with a new OS every 6 months like their idol, Macintosh.... Pay attention people, this is why.
Apples OS's never break the simplest of things... and theres never much NEED to upgrade from panther-Tiger for ex.

Our school is prefectly fine running panther for a long while after leopard is released. Whenever we refresh a pc, it can get leopard and blend right in.

Toss a Vista PC in with a mix of 98's...

Yeah, works wonders.
Posted on Reply
#5
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Dippyskoodlez said:
Apples OS's never break the simplest of things... and theres never much NEED to upgrade from panther-Tiger for ex.

Our school is prefectly fine running panther for a long while after leopard is released. Whenever we refresh a pc, it can get leopard and blend right in.

Toss a Vista PC in with a mix of 98's...

Yeah, works wonders.
Comparing how Mac OSes work two version apart vs. Windows OSes at least 4 versions apart.

Yeah, a great example, but then again I come to expect such bullshit from you. Try to thow a Leopard machine into a mix of OS9 machines and enjoy the fun!
Posted on Reply
#6
AshenSugar
Dippyskoodlez said:
Apples OS's never break the simplest of things... and theres never much NEED to upgrade from panther-Tiger for ex.

Our school is prefectly fine running panther for a long while after leopard is released. Whenever we refresh a pc, it can get leopard and blend right in.

Toss a Vista PC in with a mix of 98's...

Yeah, works wonders.
newtekie1 said:
Comparing how Mac OSes work two version apart vs. Windows OSes at least 4 versions apart.

Yeah, a great example, but then again I come to expect such bullshit from you. Try to thow a Leopard machine into a mix of OS9 machines and enjoy the fun!
um acctualy you can toss 98 machiens onto the same network with vista,2k,xp,nt4,nt3.51,win3.11 workgroups and get them all talking without to much effort, you can even toss in os/2 warp 2/3/4,and hell even beos and in a very short period i can have them all taking with little effort.
toss a mac onto that same network and its about 50/50 chance its not gonna communicate properly dispite one of the selling points of the mac is that its sposta play nice with everything how do they put it.....that plug and go thing....whatever i cant think of the slogan atm, but i know from personal exp that its bullshit, macs dont like to play nice 50% of the time.

weird how you can use many os's over a windows network with little hassle but throw in a mac and well pray it works, call apple if it dosnt, have them tell you that your network must not be setup properly.....even if its working withh 1500-5000 computers just fine already.

oh and os8/9 to 10 breaks everything unless you want to EMULATE the older os via a weird slow virtual machien......haha no thanks.
Posted on Reply
#7
Alec§taar
Dippyskoodlez said:
Apples OS's never break the simplest of things...
To be absolutely fair about it Dippy, you have to note that MacOS X & its variants don't run on as much peripheral hardware nor do they run as many varied softwares for purposes that PC's on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 do.

Dippyskoodlez said:
and theres never much NEED to upgrade from panther-Tiger for ex.
Then, why would Apple issue the rebuilds then? There's usually decent reasons for that & good reasons for some reasons to update/upgrade to them on the end-user's part - whether they do or not, is personal: You can lead a horse to water, BUT, can you make him drink?

I can honestly say, that when it comes to wanting or needing to upgrade to VISTA here, from its ancestor & base OS it was designed from largely in Windows Server 2003, that I won't make the jump, & certainly NOT for a long time, until ALL of VISTA's possible bugs are ironed-out, & there is + will be more of those.

You can "button-down" Windows Server 2003's security above & beyond its already solid level, especially if it was run thru its native "SCW - security configuration wizard" for those purposes, & DirectX 10 gaming isn't enough for me to make the jump to it, nor is IE7 (better on VISTA than it is on older MS' NT-based OS'), nor is newer versions of Media Player & the DRM stuff that is present there in it.

Dippyskoodlez said:
Our school is prefectly fine running panther for a long while after leopard is released. Whenever we refresh a pc, it can get leopard and blend right in.

Toss a Vista PC in with a mix of 98's...

Yeah, works wonders.
I can see that happening, it's not out of the question.

APK
Posted on Reply
#8
Dippyskoodlez
newtekie1 said:
Comparing how Mac OSes work two version apart vs. Windows OSes at least 4 versions apart.

Yeah, a great example, but then again I come to expect such bullshit from you. Try to thow a Leopard machine into a mix of OS9 machines and enjoy the fun!
You do know It goes Panther->tiger->leopard right? I'm comparing a 2 gen old os to the newest.

But you could substitute jaguar anywhere in there, aswell and still get a FLAWLESS integration. We have a few stragglers.


AshenSugar said:
um acctualy you can toss 98 machiens onto the same network with vista,2k,xp,nt4,nt3.51,win3.11 workgroups and get them all talking without to much effort, you can even toss in os/2 warp 2/3/4,and hell even beos and in a very short period i can have them all taking with little effort.
toss a mac onto that same network and its about 50/50 chance its not gonna communicate properly dispite one of the selling points of the mac is that its sposta play nice with everything how do they put it.....that plug and go thing....whatever i cant think of the slogan atm, but i know from personal exp that its bullshit, macs dont like to play nice 50% of the time.
WHy wont it communicate? We have a few os/2 machines on our netwrok too, but thats not the point... I've seen a few engineers plug their ibook into the network we have just fine aswell... Granted, we don't have novell support for it.. but that will be gone soon anyways.

However, a normal, less locked down network such as at home... Samba lets you access windows shares, you can share files, what DOESNT it play nice with?

Or don't you know? I don't think you've ever done it and are spouting from guesses that are made up because of fanboi horror stories.


Alec§taar said:

Then, why would Apple issue the rebuilds then? There's usually decent reasons for that & good reasons for some reasons to update/upgrade to them on the end-user's part - whether they do or not, is personal: You can lead a horse to water, BUT, can you make him drink?
All OS X's are based on the same kernel still. (X86 one is a bit funky..)

An app compiled in leopard can still work in jaguar should you decide to not use leopard specific libraries... Can you do that with VB? No. Not even close.

Apples "upgrades" OS wise are verymuch transparent to the user-- aside from FEATURES! :)

Most people cant tell the difference at school when we toss 3 panther machines, and a tiger, into the computer lab.

Give them Vista, windows XP, and you'll have come confuzzles students.
Posted on Reply
#9
Wile E
Power User
AshenSugar said:
um acctualy you can toss 98 machiens onto the same network with vista,2k,xp,nt4,nt3.51,win3.11 workgroups and get them all talking without to much effort, you can even toss in os/2 warp 2/3/4,and hell even beos and in a very short period i can have them all taking with little effort.
toss a mac onto that same network and its about 50/50 chance its not gonna communicate properly dispite one of the selling points of the mac is that its sposta play nice with everything how do they put it.....that plug and go thing....whatever i cant think of the slogan atm, but i know from personal exp that its bullshit, macs dont like to play nice 50% of the time.

weird how you can use many os's over a windows network with little hassle but throw in a mac and well pray it works, call apple if it dosnt, have them tell you that your network must not be setup properly.....even if its working withh 1500-5000 computers just fine already.

oh and os8/9 to 10 breaks everything unless you want to EMULATE the older os via a weird slow virtual machien......haha no thanks.
I Have found that if you have a networking problem involving a Mac and a Windows machine, the problem generally lies on the Windows side. It's generally a simple errant permissions setting. Tho, I do admit to not dealing with them on a large scale corporate level, but I have 3 Macs and 2 PCs (Win&Lin dual boot) machines networked in my home, and 85% of the time that I have a networking problem with a Mac, it's solved on the Windows side, 10% of the time my Mac needs a simple permissions repair in Disk Utility, and the last 5% is solved by clearing out the Keychain entry for the computer that I'm trying to connect to. I don't recall ever having a problem networking when my PCs are booted into Linux. AS far as OS 8/9, why in the hell would you still be running that? OS X has been out for how long now? I mean, do you still use Win 98 as your primary os?

I honestly don't see why pro-PC people hate Macs so much. Is it because they don't understand them? I love my OS X, and my Windows, and my Debian. They all have their strengths and weaknesses and none are better than the other.
Posted on Reply
#10
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Dippyskoodlez said:
You do know It goes Panther->tiger->leopard right? I'm comparing a 2 gen old os to the newest.

But you could substitute jaguar anywhere in there, aswell and still get a FLAWLESS integration. We have a few stragglers.
I love how you completely avoid this issue and just try and correct me, and yes I do know that it goes that way. However, they are all the same damn OS to me(OSX), just because Apple labels them as new OSes doesn't mean they are, they are all running on essentially the same code with very minor tweaks and eye candy changes, maybe a new feature added here and there. So really you are comparing moving from the one OS to just a slight more updated version of the same OS vs. moving accross 3-4 versions of Windows.

Again, try putting an OSX machine in a OS9 environment and enjoy the fun.


Dippyskoodlez said:
WHy wont it communicate? We have a few os/2 machines on our netwrok too, but thats not the point... I've seen a few engineers plug their ibook into the network we have just fine aswell... Granted, we don't have novell support for it.. but that will be gone soon anyways.

However, a normal, less locked down network such as at home... Samba lets you access windows shares, you can share files, what DOESNT it play nice with?

Or don't you know? I don't think you've ever done it and are spouting from guesses that are made up because of fanboi horror stories.
Well lets see, on our schools network we had about 300 Macs and about 1500 PCs. We got about 5 calls a week from the Mac users. What were most of them? "I can't print." Why couldn't they print? Because OSX refused to map the printer correctly, I don't know why, and neither did Apple. Our solution: Map a different printer and pray.


Dippyskoodlez said:
All OS X's are based on the same kernel still. (X86 one is a bit funky..)

An app compiled in leopard can still work in jaguar should you decide to not use leopard specific libraries... Can you do that with VB? No. Not even close.

Apples "upgrades" OS wise are verymuch transparent to the user-- aside from FEATURES! :)

Most people cant tell the difference at school when we toss 3 panther machines, and a tiger, into the computer lab.

Give them Vista, windows XP, and you'll have come confuzzles students.
Well like I have said, in my view, they are not different OSes, just more updated version of the same OS. That is like saying Windows XP and Windows XP w/ SP2 are 2 different OSes, they aren't. Again, try making a good comparision. Throw some OS9 machines in that computer lab and watch. OS9 is a very different OS than OSX is.

Though with Vista, while the outward appearance is very noticeably different, I find that people can pretty quickly adapt to using it if they have used XP.
Posted on Reply
#11
Wile E
Power User
Dippyskoodlez said:
Apples OS's never break the simplest of things... and theres never much NEED to upgrade from panther-Tiger for ex.
This is untrue. Many, many apps are dependent upon the OS build, for example, Toast 7 won't run on any version of OS X below 10.3.9 You can't even run it on 10.3.8. 10.3.8 to 10.3.9 is just a simple update, I might add, not even a new "cat". Thus, one of the downsides to OS X and Macs. In Apples defense however, at least they don't try to charge $400 for their desktop OS.
Posted on Reply
#12
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Wile E said:
I honestly don't see why pro-PC people hate Macs so much. Is it because they don't understand them? I love my OS X, and my Windows, and my Debian. They all have their strengths and weaknesses and none are better than the other.
I don't see why pro-Mac people think anyone that doesn't agree with every piece of elitest bullshit that is said about Macs suddenly hates Macs. I own a Mac, I love it, I now hate the company, but the computers are very good. However, I don't agree with the idea that they are any better than PCs, or that they are somehow perfect in every way and never have any problems, or somehow have less problems than PCs. If you want to take that as me hating Macs, go ahead I guess.
Posted on Reply
#13
Dippyskoodlez
newtekie1 said:
I love how you completely avoid this issue and just try and correct me, and yes I do know that it goes that way. However, they are all the same damn OS to me(OSX), just because Apple labels them as new OSes doesn't mean they are, they are all running on essentially the same code with very minor tweaks and eye candy changes, maybe a new feature added here and there. So really you are comparing moving from the one OS to just a slight more updated version of the same OS vs. moving accross 3-4 versions of Windows.

Again, try putting an OSX machine in a OS9 environment and enjoy the fun.




Well lets see, on our schools network we had about 300 Macs and about 1500 PCs. We got about 5 calls a week from the Mac users. What were most of them? "I can't print." Why couldn't they print? Because OSX refused to map the printer correctly, I don't know why, and neither did Apple. Our solution: Map a different printer and pray.




Well like I have said, in my view, they are not different OSes, just more updated version of the same OS. That is like saying Windows XP and Windows XP w/ SP2 are 2 different OSes, they aren't. Again, try making a good comparision. Throw some OS9 machines in that computer lab and watch. OS9 is a very different OS than OSX is.

Though with Vista, while the outward appearance is very noticeably different, I find that people can pretty quickly adapt to using it if they have used XP.
Yes, please leave out how many calls the WINDOWS USERS GIVE YOU. :rolleyes:

As for printing problems, theres always the errant few-- windows is just as bad. If not worse. You have to worry about driver versions when you get into the windows side.

Ever get to play with HP PLC 3-4-5-6 drivers? Probably not if you think OS X has problems.

Network printers are your friend.

OS 9? We have that too.. Its not nearly as functional as OS X simply because it was never intended to be... but those machines work fine. They arent there to be an active directory PC, they have to be local... if you're trying to set something up differently, learn to use it. :roll:

Then again, if you think Jaguar is the same as Tiger under the hood..

Damn, you dont have a clue. Thats all i can say.

Then you can take a gander at leopard.. its a combination of 32 and 64 bit... thats a HUGE change.. not only have they gone from PPC 32 bit to 64, then to X8632, now to x86 64bit.

They've been DAMN busy.

All of its TRANSPARENT to the user. How about windows? Pick one of the 12 different versions.... :rolleyes:



Wile E said:
This is untrue. Many, many apps are dependent upon the OS build, for example, Toast 7 won't run on any version of OS X below 10.3.9 You can't even run it on 10.3.8. 10.3.8 to 10.3.9 is just a simple update, I might add, not even a new "cat". Thus, one of the downsides to OS X and Macs. In Apples defense however, at least they don't try to charge $400 for their desktop OS.
That is purely toast's fault- NOT apples. But its no different from windows... Compile something in VB2005, and it wont run on windows 98. Heck, they're starting to block even windows 2000 users from apps now.

Its possible to compile the app to run on an older version, toast just decided not to support it.

Thats like saying OMG you wrote a VB app that wont run on windows 98! :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#14
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Dippyskoodlez said:
Yes, please leave out how many calls the WINDOWS USERS GIVE YOU. :rolleyes:
Well I have about 5 times as many Windows users, and of course I recieve more calls, actually about 5 times as many called, but very rarely is it a problem with networking. Every once in a while I'll get someone that has the capslock key on and can't log on, or someone that went through and started uninstalling their printer drivers because they couldn't figure out how to print on two sides, but for the most part the networking on the Windows machines runs rather smoothly, especially compared to the Macs. Though the only real problem I have had is printing, everything else seems to run pretty smoothly on Macs, but printing in any corporation isn't something that should be ignored, it is usually a vidal operation.

Dippyskoodlez said:
As for printing problems, theres always the errant few-- windows is just as bad. If not worse. You have to worry about driver versions when you get into the windows side.
No, it isnt just as bad, and you have to worry about versions on the Mac side to there slick.

Dippyskoodlez said:
Ever get to play with HP PLC 3-4-5-6 drivers? Probably not if you think OS X has problems.

Network printers are your friend.
Yes I have, in fact I have a HP Laserjet 5000tn running the PCL 5e drivers sitting right next to me, and a HP Laserjet 2600n, both networked using the onboard jetdirect cards, and both of which I have had problems with Macs connecting to in the past, and that is without Windows even being involved. In fact almost all of our printers are networked printers(ranging from Canon Imagerunners to HP Laserjet 4s) with the exception of a few deskjets that aren't shared.


Dippyskoodlez said:
Then again, if you think Jaguar is the same as Tiger under the hood..

Damn, you dont have a clue. Thats all i can say.
You said it yourself:

Dippyskoodlez said:
All OS X's are based on the same kernel still.
So first you say they are the same under the hood, but now they aren't? Which is it?

I think I am done with you and this discussion. There just isn't any point, you just keep back talking and avoiding the issues. Like maybe if you just ignore the problems the people bring up about Macs they don't exist. You are nothing more than a Mac fanboy and I am done with you.
Posted on Reply
#15
mout12
You guys can complain about Windows all you want... It doesn't change the fact that people don't buy PC's for the Operating System - they buy PCs because they support the software and hardware they need.
Posted on Reply
#16
mout12
Newtekie... just give up now. It's no use. You've got him backed into a corner and he's about to pull the Photoshop card... oh god this could take ages.
Posted on Reply
#17
Dippyskoodlez
newtekie1 said:


You said it yourself:



So first you say they are the same under the hood, but now they aren't? Which is it?

I think I am done with you and this discussion. There just isn't any point, you just keep back talking and avoiding the issues. Like maybe if you just ignore the problems the people bring up about Macs they don't exist. You are nothing more than a Mac fanboy and I am done with you.
You do realize kernel can remain the same, yet significantly different right? :confused:

Compare red hat 7 Vs latest maybe?

Vs windows with NT and Dos. HUGE change. OS X is still using the mach microkernel... even on x86 64 bit.

Windows is not. (98 Vs NT)
Posted on Reply
#18
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
Dippyskoodlez said:
You do realize kernel can remain the same, yet significantly different right? :confused:

Compare red hat 7 Vs latest maybe?

Vs windows with NT and Dos. HUGE change. OS X is still using the mach microkernel... even on x86 64 bit.

Windows is not. (98 Vs NT)
No, the Kernal can not remain the same, yet significantly different. It can't be the same and different at the same time, it does not work that way, I don't know what fantasy world you are living in where something can be exactly the same but be radically different at the same time.:banghead:

You are just, again, backtalking. You have no argument. I am done here.
Posted on Reply
#19
Dippyskoodlez
newtekie1 said:
No, the Kernal can not remain the same, yet significantly different. It can't be the same and different at the same time, it does not work that way, I don't know what fantasy world you are living in where something can be exactly the same but be radically different at the same time.:banghead:

You are just, again, backtalking. You have no argument. I am done here.
Its not "identical"

Apple has made the kernel significantly faster, without hampering how applications and code interacts with it. Get it?

Didn't think so.

Go back to DOS land.
Posted on Reply
#20
Alec§taar
Dippyskoodlez said:
All OS X's are based on the same kernel still. (X86 one is a bit funky..) An app compiled in leopard can still work in jaguar should you decide to not use leopard specific libraries...
Apple Mac OS X doesn't run as much software &/or PERIPHERAL (as I stated, pay attention to THAT term) hardware as Windows Server 2003 fully patched can... period.

Plus, let's face it: X86 won the ballgame out here!

IF you want to work in this field & have a larger shot @ monies? You learn X86... it's what is the most used, & the most overall versatile, bar none & especially on Windows.

Dippyskoodlez said:
Can you do that with VB? No. Not even close.
I can w/ Delphi, &/or C/C++ as far as code writing... I'm not limited to VB & its variants. Delphi & C/C++ variants run across platforms. Now, if you do want to talk cross platform (in a way, because the NET is the platform) on Ms Visual Studio 2005 products? ASP.NET will get you there... its ALL run server-side.

If you want to be technical about it? RealBasic can write code across Win32, Mac, & Linux - & it's not very diff. from VB imo! Easy to learn.

Dippyskoodlez said:
Apples "upgrades" OS wise are verymuch transparent to the user-- aside from FEATURES! :)
Stuff like security right? I would consider that paramount especially today... personally, but features DO matter.

Dippyskoodlez said:
Most people cant tell the difference at school when we toss 3 panther machines, and a tiger, into the computer lab.

Give them Vista, windows XP, and you'll have come confuzzles students.
This is possible, I don't know your environs or users...

APK
Posted on Reply
#21
zekrahminator
McLovin
Guys, I'd like to remind you...
Fighting on the internet is like playing the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
Only difference between internet and special olympics, on the internet you get infractions/banned ;).
Posted on Reply
#22
Alec§taar
zekrahminator said:
Guys, I'd like to remind you...
Fighting on the internet is like playing the special olympics. Even if you win, you're still retarded.
Only difference between internet and special olympics, on the internet you get infractions/banned ;).
Ohhhh, Z! That's NOT true, & YOU KNOW IT... lol!

:)

* Winning? Far better than losing...

APK
Posted on Reply
#23
Wile E
Power User
Dippyskoodlez said:

That is purely toast's fault- NOT apples. But its no different from windows... Compile something in VB2005, and it wont run on windows 98. Heck, they're starting to block even windows 2000 users from apps now.

Its possible to compile the app to run on an older version, toast just decided not to support it.

Thats like saying OMG you wrote a VB app that wont run on windows 98! :shadedshu
I disagree, the fact that it has to be compiled differently to run on the earlier versions of OS X, proves that portions of the kernel changed enough to force developers to change the way they compile their code. Many applications that where written and compiled for Jaguar, especially those that install kernel extensions, won't run on Panther or Tiger without an update. That, in no way, is the developers' fault. It's the same as going from Win 98 -> Me -> XP. IE: OS updates that require changes on the development end. That, imho at least, is an OS update that breaks applications.

And, like I said before, there's no point in arguing the superiority of one OS to another. All the major OS's have weak points and strong points. It's a matter of finding a compromise that you're comfortable with. I, for one, like Windows, OS X, and Linux, all for different reasons.

OFF TOPIC: Speaking of Linux, I'm kinda tired of Debian. Anybody have a suggestion for a good distro w/ KDE desktop? And don't say Kubuntu, I hate not having a true "root".
Posted on Reply
#24
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
I use Fedora Core, I like it.

Also expect a nice ban/infraction for discussing the topic at hand. The mods don't take kindly to that sort of thing around here. They would much rather prefer you just not post then discuss the topic, no one posting about the topics makes the forum so much nicer.
Posted on Reply
#25
DanTheBanjoman
Señor Moderator
newtekie1 said:
I use Fedora Core, I like it.

Also expect a nice ban/infraction for discussing the topic at hand. The mods don't take kindly to that sort of thing around here. They would much rather prefer you just not post then discuss the topic, no one posting about the topics makes the forum so much nicer.
It an endless flamewar, just like NVIDIA vs ATI and Intel vs AMD.

Fact is, I pwn all those companies. End of discussion.


As for TI, I have a Casio. WoopDeeDoo
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment