Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chrisgixer]

Micro$oft fail to understand that, when their software is a minor part of a very expensive system, it will be expected to perform for a bit longer than the usual £300 tin box from PC world. Kinda makes me wonder why people insist on developing such systems around Micro$oft software, to be honest.

I'm desperately trying to think of an OS vendor that supports and OS for as long as Microsoft. None of the Unix vendors I can think of (in fact, from next year, the only supported version of Solaris will be the current one, which is piss poor, but what you expect from Oracle). None of the Enterprise Linux vendors (and the non Enterprise ones tend to be only the current version), OS X (but then Apple are a law unto themselves), then you're in the niche ones.

For all their faults, MS do support their stuff for ages, and their support is better than most.

.... where's me violin

[TheBoy]

Micro$oft fail to understand that, when their software is a minor part of a very expensive system, it will be expected to perform for a bit longer than the usual £300 tin box from PC world. Kinda makes me wonder why people insist on developing such systems around Micro$oft software, to be honest.

I'm desperately trying to think of an OS vendor that supports and OS for as long as Microsoft. None of the Unix vendors I can think of (in fact, from next year, the only supported version of Solaris will be the current one, which is piss poor, but what you expect from Oracle). None of the Enterprise Linux vendors (and the non Enterprise ones tend to be only the current version), OS X (but then Apple are a law unto themselves), then you're in the niche ones.

For all their faults, MS do support their stuff for ages, and their support is better than most.

.... where's me violin

Its traditionally trendy to bash MS (in the same way its currently trendy to bash successful UK companies).  But in reality, they provide better support than anyone else. And offer more secure products 

[cem_devecioglu]

Micro$oft fail to understand that, when their software is a minor part of a very expensive system, it will be expected to perform for a bit longer than the usual £300 tin box from PC world. Kinda makes me wonder why people insist on developing such systems around Micro$oft software, to be honest.

I'm desperately trying to think of an OS vendor that supports and OS for as long as Microsoft. None of the Unix vendors I can think of (in fact, from next year, the only supported version of Solaris will be the current one, which is piss poor, but what you expect from Oracle). None of the Enterprise Linux vendors (and the non Enterprise ones tend to be only the current version), OS X (but then Apple are a law unto themselves), then you're in the niche ones.

For all their faults, MS do support their stuff for ages, and their support is better than most.

.... where's me violin

 

Its traditionally trendy to bash MS (in the same way its currently trendy to bash successful UK companies).  But in reality, they provide better support than anyone else. And offer more secure products 

just looking the numbers of MS running machines vs others makes trying to convince anyone unnecessary

[chrisgixer]

Micro$oft fail to understand that, when their software is a minor part of a very expensive system, it will be expected to perform for a bit longer than the usual £300 tin box from PC world. Kinda makes me wonder why people insist on developing such systems around Micro$oft software, to be honest.

I'm desperately trying to think of an OS vendor that supports and OS for as long as Microsoft. None of the Unix vendors I can think of (in fact, from next year, the only supported version of Solaris will be the current one, which is piss poor, but what you expect from Oracle). None of the Enterprise Linux vendors (and the non Enterprise ones tend to be only the current version), OS X (but then Apple are a law unto themselves), then you're in the niche ones.

For all their faults, MS do support their stuff for ages, and their support is better than most.

.... where's me violin

Its traditionally trendy to bash MS (in the same way its currently trendy to bash successful UK companies).  But in reality, they provide better support than anyone else. And offer more secure products 

...eventually.

Come on, take the Bill Gaytes tinted specs off for some of that "reality" of which you speak. I do remember a certain admin on here talking about Microsoft loosing their way not too long ago. ...now which admin WAS that, remind me H21? Noooo. Dtm? NOOOO. AA noooo ....

[Kevin Wood]

I'm desperately trying to think of an OS vendor that supports and OS for as long as Microsoft. None of the Unix vendors I can think of (in fact, from next year, the only supported version of Solaris will be the current one, which is piss poor, but what you expect from Oracle). None of the Enterprise Linux vendors (and the non Enterprise ones tend to be only the current version), OS X (but then Apple are a law unto themselves), then you're in the niche ones.

For all their faults, MS do support their stuff for ages, and their support is better than most.

My issue is that they make it impossible for ME to support it. Clearly, no manufacturer will have significant support for a mainstream product that old but, when we're talking about a system that was designed to do a job, accepted and put into service the "patch tuesday" type of support is the last thing I want anyway (and I've never managed to elicit any other useful type of support from M$).

It'll most likely be in a controlled environment where no changes that I can't account for are made (so, M$ patches can get right out of there!). Also, nobody uses it in an internet-facing role or to surf dodgy porn sites (in theory - I sometimes wonder), so that type of "support" is not especially useful.

My issue is that I can't legally sell it any more, or move the customer onto new hardware when it wears out, I can't legally get the development tools to support them any more, etc...

But.. that's a fairly niche application for which a consumer OS is being used, so not really surprising.

On a wider note, M$ have their work cut out to avoid being the next Nokia, IMHO, and they need to undo a lot of the bad in Windows 8 this time to achieve that. They bleat about having one "experience" on all devices, but the truth is that they have 3 incompatible "experiences". A crippled smartphone "experience" on a desktop machine, a crippled desktop "experience" on a smartphone and a third bastardisation comprising the worst bits of the other two on a tablet.

[TheBoy]

Micro$oft fail to understand that, when their software is a minor part of a very expensive system, it will be expected to perform for a bit longer than the usual £300 tin box from PC world. Kinda makes me wonder why people insist on developing such systems around Micro$oft software, to be honest.

I'm desperately trying to think of an OS vendor that supports and OS for as long as Microsoft. None of the Unix vendors I can think of (in fact, from next year, the only supported version of Solaris will be the current one, which is piss poor, but what you expect from Oracle). None of the Enterprise Linux vendors (and the non Enterprise ones tend to be only the current version), OS X (but then Apple are a law unto themselves), then you're in the niche ones.

For all their faults, MS do support their stuff for ages, and their support is better than most.

.... where's me violin

Its traditionally trendy to bash MS (in the same way its currently trendy to bash successful UK companies).  But in reality, they provide better support than anyone else. And offer more secure products 

...eventually.

Come on, take the Bill Gaytes tinted specs off for some of that "reality" of which you speak. I do remember a certain admin on here talking about Microsoft loosing their way not too long ago. ...now which admin WAS that, remind me H21? Noooo. Dtm? NOOOO. AA noooo ....

MS were years ahead of other options in security, party because they were a target early on. That's why FF is playing catch-up and Chrome is all but given up trying to be secure.  And I don't see many Windows sysadmins running around like a blue arsed fly over a 20yr old flaw with a severity rating of 10.  God, I wish I still specialised in Windows, rather than this *nix shite

I always said Windows 8 was a fantastic OS (it really is) let down by a really, really, REALLY shite UI. A definite loss of vision there, Mr Balmer. Win 10 seems to more of an effort to claw back those still not taking the leap to Win 8 (ie, the likes of me  ). But I've not tried the preview yet.

[TheBoy]

My issue is that they make it impossible for ME to support it. Clearly, no manufacturer will have significant support for a mainstream product that old but, when we're talking about a system that was designed to do a job, accepted and put into service the "patch tuesday" type of support is the last thing I want anyway (and I've never managed to elicit any other useful type of support from M$).

Why can't YOU support it? Unlike, say, Linux, you can use it for as long as you want if you bought the licence. MS won't provide PSS (that's a lie, you can, but if its found to be a bug, it won't get fixed) on it, but their online stuff says on for ages.

I called Redhat today, for an updated bash for RHEL3 (yes, I know, and its truly internet facing with no proper firewall). Couldn't even get passed the 1st line piss-off pill.

As I said, MS really ain't that bad for support. Pretty much the best in my experience.  The worse of the big mainstreams has to go to Oracle.

[zirk]

Forget MS, you need the new IBM stuff.

[CaptainZok]

Bit of a reg edit and it's even working on my old netbook.
Only had it running for a couple of hours but it seems fine on this little Atom with 2 gig of ram.